THE COURT: Alright, ladies and gentlemen, I hate to
start so early in the morning, but I'll ask you to
retire to the jury room for a few moments. It is
going to be necessary for the court to consider a
matter of evidence. Again, you are reminded not to
discuss the case. You all can eat donuts and drink
coffee. Is there any back there? (pause) Do you have
any idea? (background noise, indistinct voices) What
is all that noise? (indistinct voices and noises,
pause)

(Jury exits the courtroom)

THE COURT: You need to raise your right hand, please
sir.

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you swear to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth in the matter now
pending before the court, so help you God?

GRIFFIS: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Go on and be seated. (unintelligible) Do
you want to wait just a second. We've had a fire
every day we've been here, haven't we? Are you
ready? You ready? Alright, you may proceed. Let the
record reflect that this is a hearing outside of the
presence of the jury.

FOGLEMAN: Would you state your name and occupation
for the record?

GRIFFIS: Dale W. Griffis and I'm a consultant.

FOGLEMAN: Okay, what type of consultant?

GRIFFIS: I work in non-traditional groups and I
consult to victims, law enforcement, other members
of criminal justice, educators and mental health.

FOGLEMAN: What is your educational background?

GRIFFIS: I graduated from high school, graduated
from Terra Technical College with an associate
degree in police science, graduated Magna Cum Laude
Heidelburg College with a B.A. in Psychology,
Master's Degree in Criminal Justice, term paper was
on Police Intelligence for Small Agencies, then I
got a PhD from Columbia Pacific, I wrote my doctoral
dissertation on Mind Control Cults and Their Effects
on the Objectives of Law Enforcement.

FOGLEMAN: And um

GRIFFIS: And besides that I attended several other
in-service schools while being a police officer.

FOGLEMAN: What law enforcement experience if any do
you have?

GRIFFIS: Twenty six years. I rose to the rank of
captain, deputy chief of the Tiffin police
department, second in command. My father was a
policeman, before that. It kind of spins off on you.
Then, since I retired from the police department I
continue to work on a daily basis with police
agencies throughout the United States.

FOGLEMAN: You mentioned before non-traditional
groups. How do you define non-traditional groups?

GRIFFIS: Non-traditional groups are those that are
either cause-orientated or belief-orientated which
are active in society and we look at them from
malevolent? purposes.

FOGLEMAN: Could you give me an example of some of
those types of groups?

GRIFFIS: We need to look at anything from a
streetgang to the cult, C-U-L-T, to the occult
groups.

FOGLEMAN: And what experience have you had with
non-traditional groups either in law enforcement or
otherwise?

GRIFFIS: My first case had started in 1967, I was
working state intelligence board with, with our
police department, we working college campus riots
and things like that during the late sixties. Then I
work, I started working cases with cults, this being
cases on the west coast, I started on some studying
on them. We had local groups active on campuses. And
then in 1976, I worked on my first occult case which
was a human sacrifice or a boy committed suicide.

FOGLEMAN: And at some point during your law
enforcement career did you have some sort of lateral
transfer to Los Angeles or. . .?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir. I had been working part time with
the prosecuting attorney's office and when this
incident happened in 1976, I went to the prosecutor
and said "I don't understand it, it's foreign to me,
I would like some training." At which time I went
and worked with LA police department and also the
San Francisco police department and I worked the
streets.

FOGLEMAN: And in working at Los Angeles and San
Francisco did you have any experience there in
related to non-traditional groups?

GRIFFIS: A lot, yes, I did. I had the opportunity to
go into some traditional occult groups where they
were where they carried out their services, I had a
chance to go into their bookstores. I met members,
talked with them. And, really worked the street,
right, walking and talking with them into their
coffeehouses.

FOGLEMAN: And had you also been studying your, read
a lot of research material on the non-traditional
groups?

GRIFFIS: Yea.

FOGLEMAN: Including the occult?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir. When I was, while I was, after I
came back from that trip I decided I should get some
more education and signed up for this second college
group. And after a couple of knee surgeries, I
started back to school. And part of the schooling I
had, I not only talked to 500 members, former
members as part of my independent study project but
I had about 300 books I had to go through.

FOGLEMAN: And, at this time, about how many calls
per week do you receive in regards to
non-traditional groups?

GRIFFIS: Between 65 and 70.

FOGLEMAN: And of those 65 to 70 calls approximately
what percent are related to Satanism?

GRIFFIS: About 80%.

FOGLEMAN: And what courts have you been qualified in
as an expert in either the occult or non-traditional
groups or group activities?

GRIFFIS: In the court in Atlanta, Georgia. I just
did a testimony on a federal court case in Akron,
Ohio. I've testified in Defiance County, Ohio. And I
think there was one in Michigan. Yeah, one in
Michigan.

FOGLEMAN: And do you also lecture on non-traditional
groups?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir. I've lectured in about 28 states
and two foreign countries. And I've handled cases in
two other additional foreign countries.

FOGLEMAN: Now, we would submit Dr. Griffis as an
expert.

PRICE: Now Dr. Griffis, my name is Val Price and
I've got some questions to ask you, initially
starting about your credentials. You testified
earlier you have a PhD from Columbia Pacific
University?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

PRICE: Isn't it true that institution is
non-accredited?

GRIFFIS: False.

PRICE: It's false?

GRIFFIS: It is state certified.

PRICE: It is state certified but it is not
accredited by any kind of national university
standards, is that correct?

PRICE: Okay. Isn't it true when, to get your PhD
you, you are not required to take any classes on
campus, correct?

GRIFFIS: I don't know about other students but I was
on campus on a couple of, on several occasions.

PRICE: Alright. How many occasions were you on
campus attending classes at California Pacific
University?

GRIFFIS: I met with instructors on five occasions
during my visits there. But I met with them at least
telephonically at least three times a week.

PRICE: But as for as

GRIFFIS: Actual on campus, no.

PRICE: And, is it also true that California Pacific
University gives credit for life experiences?

GRIFFIS: Yeah, sure.

PRICE: Okay. Did you receive part of your, your
credit towards your PhD was that credit for life
experiences?

GRIFFIS: (nine second pause) If it was, it was a
small amount.

PRICE: Okay. Now of the approximately, the 337
faculty at California Pacific University
approximately 23% of them have PhDs from that same
institution.

GRIFFIS: I have no knowledge of that.

PRICE: As far as your dissertation, isn't it true
that your dissertation was not reviewed or approved
by any committee of scholars?

GRIFFIS: False.

PRICE: False?

GRIFFIS: False. That is, that is I should say that
is not true.

PRICE: That is not true.

GRIFFIS: Yeah, there were five people on my, on my
board, one was a medical doctor, one was a
individual who was a covert colonel in military
police, I had a PhD who was a psychologist, I had a,
another individual who was a, from Merion? in
English, and I had another individual Dr. Cloud and
I can not tell you what his background was.

PRICE: And a Frank Braceland was your mentor?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: But he, he was not one of the ones who
reviewed your dissertation. . .

GRIFFIS: Yes, he did.

PRICE: Oh, he did okay. And he's an investigator
with the Washington State Board of Pharmacy?

GRIFFIS: I, he had something to do with the state
board of pharmacy, yes.

PRICE: Alright, now, the chapters in your
dissertation, the chapter on Cults and the Law, that
was not written by you, that was written by a
lawyer?

GRIFFIS: That was, we both put that together, yes
sir.

PRICE: And your dissertation was approximately 200
pages long?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: Okay now. Specifically, what classes, was it
correspondence classes you took to get in order to
get your PhD at California Pacific University?

GRIFFIS: I went there, but I did correspond, yes.

PRICE: Alright now, if they don't have classrooms.

GRIFFIS: That's right. I'm just saying, I did go, I
was on campus but the majority was by corresponding,
yes.

PRICE: The campus itself consists of one building,
doesn't it?

GRIFFIS: No. I think there are three now.

PRICE: Three buildings.

GRIFFIS: Yes sir.

PRICE: It contains the, according to the latest
Burke's?? reference ?? The office is a simple
administration building, office of the dean,
registrar, admissions, academic counselling,
business office and bookstore. But as far as the
lecture classrooms, are there any lecture
classrooms?

GRIFFIS: I did not go into the area that there was.
I understand in Petaluma they do have some.

PRICE: But, San Rafael, is where, is that where you
went?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

PRICE: That's where your degree is from?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

PRICE: Okay. But as far as. . . I understand you did
a dissertation, but were there, were there classes
that you actually took to get the PhD?

GRIFFIS: Only ones through with the mentor, yes,
that's correct.

PRICE: And how many classes did you. . .

GRIFFIS: No, I said I just attended with the mentor.

PRICE: That's what you meant by, that's when you
said earlier

GRIFFIS: Doctor Braceland.

PRICE: Okay and you went to the campus and you met
him four or five times.

GRIFFIS: He and three and a doctor, a medical doctor
there, Dr. Cruise. And I don't know what the
female's name was, I believe it was Heather
McKenzie. That's been awhile ago.

PRICE: A different area. But also you did not
attend, show up on campus to attend classes for your
Masters, either, is that correct?

GRIFFIS: No. That was a combined program which many
universities do.

PRICE: Combined meaning what?

GRIFFIS: They have a PhD, Masters program combined.

PRICE: Oh, okay. But as far as actually. . . I guess
I'm confused because, because we have Arkansas State
University here and most PhD programs that operate
where you actually show up on campus and take
classes from professors and you probably know this
as well. But in this program you're saying you did
show up, you showed up three or four times but as
far as taking any classes once a week.

GRIFFIS: My, my. . . I was in classroom about every
day when I was on the street. The, you know, we
worked, I was fortunate, I was going into an area
where I was working daily. I took my, I worked in
the evening on what I was to study and not, I am in
a rural area where these type of programs were not
given.

PRICE: Alright, so you are saying by working on the
streets, by working in law enforcement you received
credit for your PhD based on the work you were
doing, is it?

GRIFFIS: No, I'm not saying that.

PRICE: Apparently, I'm confused.

GRIFFIS: Okay. I was working on the street in my
chosen area and studying in the evening.

PRICE: Okay. Alright, alright, at the same time as
getting your degree you were working as a police
officer?

GRIFFIS: Yes. Yes, I was.

PRICE: Alright, so while you were working on the
street as a police officer at the same time as you
were doing your police duties you were also working
on, on credit for your PhD?

GRIFFIS: Are you asking me was I studying on the
job? And the answer was no.

PRICE: Alright but, you were working as a police
officer.

GRIFFIS: Yes sir.

PRICE: But you were, you were also working toward
your degree?

GRIFFIS: Well, the things I saw on the streets, you
know, I could relate to them, relate to my studies
and I would incorporate them, yes.

PRICE: Alright, so a typical aft. . ., like most
police officers work a certain shift. The standard
is three shifts.

GRIFFIS: Sure.

PRICE: Okay. While you were working as a police
officer in the standard of three shifts. The things
you would encountered while being a police officer.
. .

GRIFFIS: I am incorporated in my studies for
??lawyers??

PRICE: One moment, your honor. (pause) How long did
it take you to complete the, the PhD?

GRIFFIS: The total program was close to three years.

PRICE: Okay, that would carry on through the masters
and the combined program. (overlapping with:)

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

PRICE: One moment, your Honor. (pause) Alright, I
believe you mentioned earlier that you have attended
or given, or talked at certain seminars?

GRIFFIS: Yes, I did.

PRICE: Have these seminars been primarily for law
enforcement officers?

GRIFFIS: No, sir.

PRICE: Have they also been for the general public?

GRIFFIS: No, sir. They were primarily either for law
enforcement, educators or mental health people.

PRICE: Okay. But your, would you agree with me that
your primary obligation is to police officers?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: Alright, and I would like to ask you if this
quote could be attributed to you. "You've got to
remember there are a lot of sheriffs and a lot of
police chiefs under a hell of a lot of pressure when
I get there. I'm there to help my brother police
officers. I report to them, not the public." Is
that, is that quote attribute to you?

GRIFFIS: I don't know what you're quoting from.

PRICE: Okay. Have you read the article by Don Beard,
"Sympathy for the Devil," that was in Capitol
Magazine, Denver, Colorado, July 15, 1984, in which
you’re attributed to, made that quote?

FOGLEMAN (?): Your Honor, I think the proper way,
whether he made the quote, not whether he read an
article in which it’s attributed to it.

PRICE: Well he said he couldn’t remember the quote,
Judge, and I just wanted to quote the source.

THE COURT: He said he didn’t know what you were
quoting from.

PRICE: Alright, you mean as far as the book I have
right here? Alright, this is the book, “Pursuit of
Satan” by Robert D. Hicks, which discusses both your
background and your philosophy, and your methods and
techniques. That quote comes on p. 86.

THE COURT: Did you make that statement at any time?

GRIFFIS: I, uh, I know Don Beard and I may have made
that, yes.

PRICE: Alright, nothing further at this time, your
Honor.

(pause)

FORD: Help me out just a little bit, Mr. Griffis. Or
is it Dr. Griffis?

GRIFFIS: Whatever you wish.

FORD: What year did you graduate from high school?

GRIFFIS: ‘55

FORD: And where was that?

GRIFFIS: In Tiffin, Ohio.

FORD: In Tiffin, Ohio. Alright, and where did you go
to technical school?

GRIFFIS: Terra Technical School in, ah, Fremont,
Ohio.

FORD: And what was your course of study there?

GRIFFIS: Police science.

FORD: Police science. And how long was that endeavor
of study?

GRIFFIS: That’s a two-year course.

FORD: And when did you graduate?

GRIFFIS: (sigh) 1974.

FORD: 1974. What did you do…

GRIFFIS: …counselor…

FORD: …what did you do…

GRIFFIS: …counselor, at the same time I was going to
that school, I was going to Heiderberg College.

FORD: Okay, hang on just a second. Now what did you
do between 1955 and 1974? Between high school and
graduating from technical school with a degree in
police science, and that’s a two-year associate
degree?

GRIFFIS: Yes

FORD: Kinda like from a community college?

GRIFFIS: Well, I, I started at, at Western Reserve
University, and then I went into the Army.

FORD: Is that sorta like a community college?

GRIFFIS: Which one is that, sir?

FORD: Where you got the police science degree?

GRIFFIS: Terra Techni…yes it is

FORD: That was, were you a full time student for
that two year period of time?

GRIFFIS: Did I attend classes on, uh, yeah.

FORD: You know, I mean some students go half, they
take half a load and work part time, they, or
something, they…

GRIFFIS: I was taking half a load from Terra Tech
and half a load at, from Heidelberg at the same
time.

FORD: Okay. So you were, you were getting your, your
two year degree in techni…in police science from
community college at the same time you were enrolled
in a program for a 4 year degree from an accredited
college or university?

GRIFFIS: Both of them are accredited colleges.

FORD: Okay, but the technical college does not offer
a four-year degree program?

GRIFFIS: No sir.

FORD: It does not offer a B.A. or a B.S.?

GRIFFIS: No.

FORD: Okay, so you were enrolled at a four-year
institution at the same time you were enrolled at a
two-year instit--at the community college?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: What year did you get your B.A.?

GRIFFIS: (pause) It was the following year.

FORD: 1975?

GRIFFIS: Yes. No! 1976.

FORD: 1976. What year did you enroll, what year did
you enroll in the, uh, what was the name of the four
year institution?

GRIFFIS: Uh, Heidelberg College.

FORD: Eider…

GRIFFIS: Heidelberg!

FORD: College?

GRIFFIS: Yes sir.

FORD: And what town is that located in?

GRIFFIS: It’s in Tiffin.

FORD: It’s in Tiffin. Okay, what year did you enroll
there?

GRIFFIS: 1970.

FORD: 1970?

GRIFFIS: Yeah. I, I started under the, uh, law
enforcement, uh, LEEA Program.

FORD: What year did you enroll in the, uh, technical
college?

GRIFFIS: (blows out air) I can’t, I can’t remember
specifically.

FORD: Okay. The entire time that you were involved
as a student at Heidelberg College, were you also a
full time police officer?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: Okay. Okay. When did you enroll in Pacific
University?

GRIFFIS: Columbia Pacific…University?

FORD: Yes. Never heard of it, that’s why…

GRIFFIS: 1980.

FORD: 1980?

GRIFFIS: That’s my (unintelligible) recollection,
right around 1980.

FORD: Now, this is a—this is a—this is a mail order
college, isn’t it? You…

GRIFFIS: Universi--

FORD: You send in—you send in—don’t they run a
television ad, where you can send in—have you seen
it on TV, where you can send in a request for what
you want your degree in, and then they’ll send you
back information on how to get that degree? Is that
the same college?

GRIFFIS: To the best of my knowledge, no.

FORD: Okay. When did you finish? You started in
1980. When did you obtain your master’s degree?

GRIFFIS: I finished it in, uh, (pause) ’82.

FORD: ’82. And when did you get your PhD?

GRIFFIS: Uh, in ’84.

FORD: In ’84. Okay. What—what was the title of your
dissertation?

GRIFFIS: Mind Control, Cults, and Their Effects on
the Objectives of Law Enforcement.

FORD: Mind Control, Cults, and Their Effects on Law
Enforcement.

GRIFFIS: On the objectives of law enforcement.

FORD: On the obj—what are the objectives of law
enforcement?

GRIFFIS: Maintain peace…

FORD: Okay.

GRIFFIS: …keep law and tranquility, protect the
citizens.

FORD: Okay. What classes did you take between 1980
and 1982 to obtain your master’s degree?

GRIFFIS: What cl—

FORD: What classes—

GRIFFIS: I testified…

FORD: I’m asking you what classes

THE COURT: Wh—avoid repetition

FORD: I didn’t hear him answer the name of any
classes that he took.

THE COURT: (unintelligible)

FORD: What classes did you take?

GRIFFIS: I told you I was in correspondence and I
was with one of the, uh, of two people who were
monitoring my, uh, work.

FORD: What classes did you take?

GRIFFIS: I—I told y—I answered that before, none.

FORD: You did not take any classes. Is that…I just
wanna understand from—

GRIFFIS: Cuz your question was during that period of
time—

FORD: Between 1980, when you enrolled, and 1982,
when you got your master’s degree, what classes did
you take to give you…take you from having a B.A. to
a master’s degree? What classes did you take?

GRIFFIS: I answered that. I didn’t take—

FORD: No classes. Okay, between 1982 and 1984 when
you became a PhD, what classes did you take?

GRIFFIS: None.

FORD: None. Okay. Between 1980 and 198—

THE COURT: Just, just, just a minute. By classes,
are you talking about enrolled in a named
description course on a day-to-day basis? Is that
what you’re asking?

FORD: Kinda like Contracts 101, did he ever take
that?

THE COURT: Okay. Did, did you follow a prescribed
course of study, uh, through a mentor, or a, a, a…

GRIFFIS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

FORD: Can you just—can we ask him to describe that,
what that prescribed curriculum was?

GRIFFIS: Yes. We, we sat down, uh, uh, and I went
over, uh, the various, uh, (pause) are you—

GRIFFIS: Okay. I had, uh, first of all, a treatise,
er, that I had to put together, which consisted I
believe of about 95 pages which explain, uh,
graphics, and diagramming, and methodologies for
small police agencies in doing, ah, intelligence
diagramming. To do that, it required, uh, quite a
series of, uh, texts (note by Sally…that word might
have been tests instead of texts), I had to go
through with, uh, the actual working, uh, relations
and meeting and discussing with analysts throughout
the United States how the procedures were done.
Also, uh, I had attended, uh, four courses on
intelligence, uh, operations and graphics, and I
went back to the people who, uh, uh, designed those
courses, and, uh, worked through them, and then we
started putting the, uh, papers together.

FORD: So in other words, the curriculum was designed
just for you. No established curriculum, but it’s a
curriculum to meet your individual objectives, your
individual time constraints.

GRIFFIS: My ind—

FORD: (unintelligible) You’ve gotta take these
classes, that classes, and once you take these
classes, and, uh, and complete certain coursework,
then we’ll give you a degree, or do you get to
basically determine what it is you wanna do to get
to that degree?

GRIFFIS: No, it’s not what I wanted. I discussed
what I—my objectives were, and they told me what I
had to do to obtain those objectives.

FORD: What did you have to do to get the master’s
degree? Your Honor, I’m not trying to be repetitive
cuz I clearly don’t understand how he gets his
master’s degree.

GRIFFIS: I told you, I, I went, and I had a series
of books I had to read, I had a series of interviews
I had to comport (?) with, I had, uh, a series of
people who I, ah, had correspondence, and also I
went back on four courses I had taken as a police
officer in intelligence work, and, uh, between this
working plus working with the mentors who were
assigned to me, then I started to put the work
together.

FORD: Did your mentor have any education or
background in, in police work?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: Okay, did he have any education and background
in the occult?

GRIFFIS: For master’s level?

FORD: Any background.

GRIFFIS: No.

FORD: A—after you got your master’s degree, what
courses did you take to get your PhD?

GRIFFIS: The same type of work I did for my Ph or my
master’s.

FORD: Correspondence courses.

GRIFFIS: I worked through my—a series of mentors, I
talked with, uh, approximately 500 people during my
ISP and interviewed them.

FORD: But, does that mean you did not take any
classes? To get from your master’s to your…did you
take any classes?

THE COURT: The question probably should be did you
follow a prescribed course of study?

FORD: Your Honor, they can ask him that question.
I’m asking what classes?

THE COURT: Well, I’m gonna ask him that. Did you
follow a prescribed course of study that was
designated, uh, by your, er, instructors?

GRIFFIS: Yes I did.

FORD: And what classes were in that prescribed
curriculum? What classes?

GRIFFIS: Uh, I think, uh, counselor, I’ve answered
that.

FORD: Is the answer, “NO classes?”

GRIFFIS: Yes, I answered that before.

FORD: Okay, so all of your education, lemme ask you
this, between 1980, when you enrolled, and 1984,
when you graduated as, with a PhD, were you a
full-time police officer?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: Okay. And where were you employed as a full
time police officer between 1980 and 1984?

GRIFFIS: Tiffin, Ohio Police Department.

FORD: Okay.

GRIFFIS: Rank of captain.

FORD: How, how were you accepted into enrollment at
Columbia Pacific University?

GRIFFIS: I had to fill out a, uh, several series of
papers including all my education, background,
experience.

FORD: Did you ever fill out a little flyer like
this…

GRIFFIS: No, sir.

FORD: …that says, “Call toll-free for information”?

GRIFFIS: No, sir.

FORD: Have you ever seen wh—have you ever seen how
they…call toll-free for information on how to become
a doctor?

GRIFFIS: No, sir.

FORD: Did you attend a graduation ceremony?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir, I did.

FORD: And wh—did you attend one in 1982?

GRIFFIS: No, sir.

FORD: In 1984?

GRIFFIS: Yeah, I most certainly did.

FORD: How many, other than the graduation ceremony
that you attended in 1984, wh—how many other times
were you in California, on campus?

GRIFFIS: I think I testified about that before. That
was four or five times.

FORD: Four or five times. Okay. What is a
nontraditional group? What is that?

GRIFFIS: It can be either a cause-orientated (sic)
or belief-orientated (sic) group operating in
society, at which time, uh, in my training they
teach them that they, people are using or working
around manevolent (sic) tendencies.

FORD: Wor—working around what?

GRIFFIS: Manevolent tendencies.

FORD: What?

GRIFFIS: Breaking the law.

FORD: Okay. What is a, what’s an example of one of
these groups? Is there an example of one of these
groups that you’ve identified, and, and, know who,
know who their members are?

GRIFFIS: Yeah, I’ve worked, keep in mind I’ve been
working these since 1967—

FORD: Well then you oughta have lots of examples.
Gimme a—

GRIFFIS: Yeah.

FORD: What’s an example…

GRIFFIS: Crips, Bloods are cause-orientated (sic),
uh, I have run into a lot of, uh, occult-type cults
throughout the United States where kids have, uh,
done all types of activities, uh, criminal in
nature, wh—from simple malicious destruction of
property up to and including death.

FORD: Okay, now are those belief-oriented groups or
cause-oriented groups?

GRIFFIS: The, these occult cults are
belief-orientated (sic) groups.

FORD: In other words, their beliefs motivate them to
do, break the law.

GRIFFIS: Help them. Yes sir, they do.

FORD: Okay, and a cause-oriented group is someone
who might break the law…why, why might they break
the law, a cause-oriented group?

GRIFFIS: They’re either out for, uh, drug, uh,
movements. They’re out for, um, money. They’re out
for various type of different causes.

FORD: Okay. They also…gangs?

GRIFFIS: I, you can, there’s another term that you
can affiliate with them. Gangs. Street gangs.

FORD: Okay, what is the term you affiliate with
gangs?

GRIFFIS: I use, uh, some people just call them
gangs.

FORD: Gangs. What do you call them?

GRIFFIS: Gangs or non-traditional groups, dependent
upon the individual setting.

FORD: All right. (clears throat) Have you ever
studied a non-traditional group in the State of
Arkansas?

GRIFFIS: (long pause) Yes, I had a, uh, I had a, uh,
a call. One. One.

FORD: Did you ever, have you ever been to the State
of Arkansas and conducted any field investigations?

GRIFFIS: Field investigations? No, sir.

FORD: Okay, prior to getting involved in this case,
had you ever been to the State of Arkansas in this
line of work?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir, I have.

FORD: Okay, and when was that?

GRIFFIS: I can’t tell you, uh, exactly, uh, the date
it was, but I was a guest of, uh, Pulaski County
coroner, and I, uh, gave a lecture, uh, and I think
there were a couple hundred people there.

FORD: But that, were you there to lecture in the
State of Arkansas or were you there to make an
investigation? Have you ever been to the State of
Arkansas involved in an investigation?

GRIFFIS: Hav—I answered that. No.

FORD: Have you ever visited with Jason Baldwin?

GRIFFIS: I don’t know who he is.

FORD: You don’t know who he is.

GRIFFIS: No.

FORD: Okay. Have you ever visited with Damien
Echols?

GRIFFIS: No.

FORD: What is a lateral transfer?

GRIFFIS: That’s when, that’s when you go from one
place agency and work for another one.

FORD: Okay. And you went, in 1976, to, uh, L.A. for
a lateral transfer?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: Okay, and when did you go back?

GRIFFIS: I, I was there, uh, less than a mo—I was
there two weeks.

FORD: So this, so this on the street
inves—education, in the coffee shops, meeting with
these people, that was for two weeks, that you…?

GRIFFIS: There, yes, but that, you know, it’s been
all over the United States.

FORD: Okay. When you, you said that you were
qualified as an expert in Atlanta, Georgia?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: What field were you qualified as an expert in?

GRIFFIS: Uh, occult activities.

FORD: Occult activities. And what court was that in?

GRIFFIS: Cobb County, uh, a st—

FORD: A state court?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

FORD: Akron, Ohio, what field were you qualified as
an expert in?

GRIFFIS: Occult.

FORD: And what kind of court was that?

GRIFFIS: Federal.

FORD: And in Michigan?

GRIFFIS: Uh, that was a state court, and it was in
the occult.

FORD: Are these the only three times you’ve been
recognized as an expert in the field of the occult?

THE COURT: In court? Is that what you’re asking?

FORD: Yes, sir, in court.

GRIFFIS: In the, in the occult? Uh, yes.

FORD: Okay. Are you here today to give an opinion in
the, in the occult?

GRIFFIS: Whatever the counselor, okay, yes.

FORD: Do you, do you, have you formed an opinion,
now? Do you have an opinion at this point in time as
to whether or not the homicides that we’re in this
trial about are occult in nature?

GRIFFIS: I have, the counselor has not shown me all
the information, so…

FORD: So right now you haven’t formed an opinion
because you haven’t even, you don’t have an opinion
right now.

GRIFFIS: I, not totally, no.

FORD: Okay, tell me, who have you talked to in this
case? Who, where have you gained your information in
this case?

GRIFFIS: Uh, from Det. Ridge.

FORD: From Ridge?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: Okay.

GRIFFIS: Uh, the prosecutor—

FORD: Which, which one?

GRIFFIS: The one, uh, Mr. Fogleman—

FORD: Mr. Fogleman, all right. Who else?

GRIFFIS: And, uh, approximately, uh, a year ago I
was called, uh, by a, uh, gentleman by the name of
Jerry Driver, I believe.

FORD: Jerry Driver.

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: He called you about a year ago.

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

FORD: Okay. How many times did you talk to Jerry
Driver?

GRIFFIS: Probably about five or six.

FORD: 5 or 6 times. And when was the last time you
talked to him?

GRIFFIS: Shortly after this case took place.

FORD: Shortly after May of ’93?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: So, you had already been contacted by Jerry
Driver even before these homicides occurred.

GRIFFIS: That’s right.

FORD: Okay. So, was the last time you talked to
Jerry Driver in the month of May? 1993?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: How many times have you spoken with Mr.
Fogleman?

GRIFFIS: Probably ten, twelve.

FORD: 10 or 12 times. Have you ever told Mr.
Fogleman that these homicides were the result of the
actions of a non-traditional group that was either
cause-oriented or belief-oriented?

GRIFFIS: I told him, uh, that there were some
indicators, ah, present, and, ah, I did furnish them
some questions.

FORD: Okay, but did you ever say, “Yes, these
homicides are occult-oriented.”? Did you ever tell
him that?

GRIFFIS: Not specifically.

FORD: Okay, when was the l—when was the first time
you talked with Mr. Fogleman?

GRIFFIS: I, uh, I th—probably about a month ago, I
think.

FORD: Okay. So that ten to twelve conver--ten to
twelve conversations have all been--

THE COURT: I think you’ve gone into
cross-examination at this point rather than…

FORD: Your Honor—

THE COURT: …rather than voir dire your witnesses,
witness on his, uh, expertise in the field of the
occult

FORD: I’m trying to attain—

THE COURT: We’re gonna have to do everything y’all
are doing now over for the jury if I allow him to
testify as an expert, so…

FORD: Well, right now I’m trying—

THE COURT: I (unintelligible) your cross-examination
is, is not appropriate. Your, your questions as to
his competency, his expertise in the field, uh,
anything along that line, uh, will be allowed.

FORD: Your Honor, until this witness forms an
opinion based upon the court’s order in limine, then
we can’t go forward, and he can’t testify in open
court on that opinion because of the order in
limine, your Honor.

FOGLEMAN: I was going to the qualifications first. I
hadn’t gotten to the opinion part.

THE COURT: That’s all I’m saying, gentlemen, if
you’ve got any further questions going to his
qualifications as an expert in the field, I’m gonna
allow them, but to cross-examine him, uh, at this
point on whether he has an opinion or not, I’m not
gonna allow it.

FORD: Have you ever, have you ever been involved in
a confirmed occult killing?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: Okay, when was that?

GRIFFIS: I’ve been involved in two of them.

FORD: Two of them?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir. One was in Rhode Island, one was
in Michigan, and, uh, counselor, for me to, uh, I’ll
be very clear with you. I can’t remember exactly
when the dates were.

FORD: You don’t, all right.

GRIFFIS: It would be within the last four years.

FORD: In the last four years, and of the entire time
that you’ve been involved, those are the only two?

GRIFFIS: No, this would be the third one.

FORD: This would be the third confirmed occult
killing?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: So, at this point, are you saying it is a, an
occult killing?

GRIFFIS: I haven’t made my opinions yet, I—

FORD: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: Ha--have you published in the area of, of
occult activity other than your dissertation and
your thesis?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir. I’ve written four books used in,
in, uh, by criminal justice and that, uh, uh, books
that they use in their (unintelligible) work.

THE COURT: And apparently someone’s written a book,
uh, that, uh, that questions your theories. Are you
familiar with that book?

GRIFFIS: I haven’t read it. Uh, I know that I’m in
about 50 books, and out of the fifty, two of them
don’t like me.

THE COURT: If you’re sufficiently known in that
field as an expert to have people question your
methods, techniques, and, and to write books about
you?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir, I’ve also been in two movies.

THE COURT: All right.

FORD: Have you, did you conduct any scientific tests
in this case?

GRIFFIS: In which case?

FORD: In this one.

GRIFFIS: Oh, this case? No.

FORD: Have you conduc—conducted any interviews in
this case?

THE COURT: Again, you’re going to cross-examination.

FORD: I’m going to qualifications, your Honor. This
court is, this court has previously entered an order
that a (sic) individual who held a degree of PhD
could not render his opinion because there was an
absence of any scientific tests, and I’m asking—

THE COURT: If you’re talking about the
(unintelligible) doctor, yeah, go ahead and ask him
your question.

FORD: And I’m asking this doctor, what scientific
tests have you conducted in this case to form an
opinion?

GRIFFIS: Scientific tests?

FORD: Mm-hmm!

GRIFFIS: None.

FORD: Can you, can you tell me in this Rhode Island
case, who confirmed that it was a cult killing? Who
made that determination that it was a confirmed
occult killing?

GRIFFIS: I did, along with the officers involved,
yes.

FORD: Who made the confirmation in Michigan?

GRIFFIS: The, uh, police agencies and it was based
on the confession of the perpetrator.

FORD: Can you remember the names of either of the
defendants in these two cases?

GRIFFIS: I can tell you the police, police officers
I worked with, yes.

FORD: Okay, in Rhode Island.

GRIFFIS: Uh, Sgt. Ed Pierce.

FORD: Sgt. Ed Pierce. And do you know what town that
was in?

GRIFFIS: Sure. Warwick, Rhode Island.

FORD: Warwick?

GRIFFIS: Warwick, yes.

FORD: Okay, and in Michigan?

GRIFFIS: Ah, it was just outside of the Flint area,
and, uh, I, I’ll be very honest, I’d have to go back
and look at my files. This I worked with the, uh,
def—the defense counsel, and, on that case.

FORD: Thank you.

PRICE: I got a few more questions on credentials,
Judge.

THE COURT: All right.

PRICE: Dr. Griffis, you had mentioned that you had
published, uh, four books on the occult subjects.
Was one of them “The Four Faces of Satan”?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: Okay. And was one of them “Runes, Glyphs, and
Alphabets”?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: Okay. And was one of them “The Investigation
Manual for Non-Traditional Groups”?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: And that’s what’s also incorporated in your
dissertation? Or parts of it at least?

GRIFFIS: I think I took from the dissertation those
facts and put it in there.

PRICE: And put it in the investigation manual. All
right. And then what was the fourth publication?

GRIFFIS: “A Primer For Law Enforcement on
Non-Traditional Groups”.

PRICE: Okay. Uh, nothing further at this time, your
Honor.

FORD: One more question. What was, what was the name
of the defendant or the case name in Atlanta,
Georgia where you were qualified as an expert
witness?

GRIFFIS: I, ah, can tell you it was Cobb County
Sheriff Department, and this case, and I, I don’t
know.

FORD: You don’t know?

GRIFFIS: No, no, I don’t…

FORD: And what year?

GRIFFIS: I’d have to go back in my files, counselor,
to be very honest with you to see what it was. I
don’t keep track of…

FORD: What about Akron? Same answer for Akron, Ohio?
Can you remember the name and when that was?

GRIFFIS: I said it (unintelligible) last week for
attorney York, in, in, ah, Akron, Ohio.

FORD: What was, what was the case name?

GRIFFIS: Was a consortium of people vs. a school
system up, up there. Which, they did not, it did
not, all I did was look at some pictures and go
through. I gave them some opinions and did some…

FORD: Civil case?

GRIFFIS: Civil.

FORD: And Atlanta, Georgia, was it a civil or
criminal case?

GRIFFIS: I think it was both.

FORD: Both.

GRIFFIS: Yeah, it was, it was kind of a, well, my
aspect was in the civil side of it.

FORD: What about in Michigan?

GRIFFIS: That was a murder case.

FORD: You remember the name of that?

GRIFFIS: It didn’t bring, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to
have faded recollection, but I just don’t remember
it. I know the first kid’s name was Jeff and he was
in Ionia prison.

FORD: Thank you.

THE COURT: Anything else? Are y’all waiting on me?

PRICE: Judge, I’d just like to make an argument at
this point on behalf of my client, it’s our position
that the, based on a mail-order PhD in which a, a
person doesn’t have to take classes, doesn’t have to
take any residence courses from a non-accredited
school, does not qualify as an expert in Arkansas,
and that we object to the Court qualifying Dr.
Griffis as an expert.

THE COURT: I’m not sure in Arkansas or in any other
state that you have to have any kind of degree to be
an expert in a particular field

PRICE: All right, that’s true your Honor, but—

THE COURT: To demonstrate knowledge, education,
experience and training in the field, you could have
a third-grade education if you have other education,
experience and training that qualifies you as an
expert, so I’m not persuaded at all by your argument
about a mail-order PhD. So is there anything else?

FORD: Your Honor, I think that he’s failed to
demonstrate the reputable training, education and
experience that qualifies as expert.

THE COURT: I, I disagree. I’m gonna allow him to
testify in the area of occult. All right.

FORD: Assuming he has a—

THE COURT: If he doesn’t have an opinion, then it
doesn’t mean anything anyway.

FORD: Your Honor, you reckon we can go into that?

THE COURT: Yeah, but I’d like a five minute recess
just for us now. I’m gonna tell the jury another 10
or 15 minutes. (laughter)

(COURTROOM NOISE, THEN TAPE STOPS AND RESTARTS
DURING A CONVERSATION BETWEEN GRIFFIS AND BURNETT,
FOGLEMAN, AND DAVIS)

GRIFFIS: …horse’s ass, who was with the (Virginia
State Authority?), and I’ve lectured in his hometown
area for the police agencies, regional police
agencies there, and I’ve also done work for the
mental health hospital in his (catchman?) area.

BURNETT: What is it…does he just not believe that…?

GRIFFIS: There’s some, there’s some, there’s
something they believe to (unintelligible)
scientologist, okay, which I just don’t, I don’t
want to put your ass on the firing line on that as
well as mine, okay.

FOGLEMAN: I don’t know what it is, he wants you to
explain to the jury (unintelligible) anything about
those degrees. Rather than have him do it, I’m sure
he’s going to ask you. I’m gonna go ahead and have
him bring that (unintelligible)

GRIFFIS: I mean, on, to, for the jury. Sure, no
problem, and the thing about that is, in 1976, they
didn’t have training in this area in any place. Hi.
Dale Griffis.

DAVIS: I’m Brent Davis, prosecutor.

GRIFFIS: Ah, now you know why I got out of the
fuckin’ prosecutor’s office, ah…(laughter), no—

(TAPE CUTS OFF, CUTS BACK ON AGAIN)

BURNETT: All right, court will be in session. Let
the record reflect that this is a continuation of
the in camera hearing on occult activity, I guess
that’s what…

FOGLEMAN: At my request, did you, uh, view the
autopsy reports of the three victims, Michael Moore,
Stevie Branch and Chris Byers in this case?

GRIFFIS: Yes I did.

FOGLEMAN: Did you also review the autopsy
photo--some autopsy photographs that I sent to you?

GRIFFIS: Prior to that?

FOGLEMAN: No, after that.

GRIFFIS: Oh, yes.

FOGLEMAN: Did you also at my request review some
crime scene photographs?

GRIFFIS: Yes, I did.

FOGLEMAN: Now, in addition to what you have
reviewed, if you would assume that there was
testimony that showed that, uh, blood was sucked
from the penis of one of the victims, that this
occurred on May the 5th of 1993, that there was a
full moon, and that there was absence of evidence of
blood at the scene, would you have an opinion as to
whether or not there are, uh, (long pause) do you
have an opinion as to whether or not there are, uh,
occult overtones or evidence of occult involvement,
uh, in these particular murders?

GRIFFIS: It would, uh, tell me to believe that it
was some, uh, possibility of occultism being
involved.

FOGLEMAN: All right. And what would that opinion be
based on?

GRIFFIS: Well, the date being close to, ah, Beltane…

FOGLEMAN: What is that?

GRIFFIS: …a holiday, May 1st, also the day before
that is Walpurgisnacht. Then you go into the fact
that some, ah, groups, uh, occult/cult groups or,
will use a full moon. Uh, in several occult books,
they will talk about the life force of the blood,
usually the younger the individual, the more pure it
is, the more power or the force it has.

FOGLEMAN: Okay, was there anything about the manner
in which, uh, the victims were tied?

GRIFFIS: I have observed over my tenure in a lot of,
of death scenes, photos, these boys were placed in
what I would refer to as a display mode. They were
tied ankles to wrists, opening up the area.

FOGLEMAN: When you say display mode, what do you
mean?

GRIFFIS: Well, they were tied ankles, opening up the
genitalia, and there, this would be laying either
face down or face up.

FOGLEMAN: Uh, was there anything about the type of
injuries, uh, that would give an indication of an
occult overtone to the murders?

GRIFFIS: In, um, in the cases where I’ve worked
where there (unintelligible) I observed photos of
there, people are overkilled. In other words, the
ritual is going on or the event is going on, the
body is repeatedly killed.

FOGLEMAN: All right, and when you say overkill, what
do you mean?

GRIFFIS: Well, where a person, ah, will receive a
lethal blow or a lethal cut, this one will have many
of them.

FOGLEMAN: Does the absence of blood, or evidence of
blood at the scene have some significance in
relation to your opinion?

GRIFFIS: A lot of times they will take blood and
store it for other services and other use (long
pause) as well as consume it.

FOGLEMAN: Consume it as in drink it?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

FOGLEMAN: Alright, and is that related…

GRIFFIS: Or bathe in it.

FOGLEMAN: Okay, is that related to what you said
before about the life force?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

FOGLEMAN: I don’t have any further questions, if
anyone else (unintelligible mumbling and pause).
Your Honor, I did have, I missed something. What
about the fact that, uh, on the picture of Chris
Byers (unintelligible) the castration injury, that
had some significance in this area?

GRIFFIS: I have seen photos and worked a case,
knowledgeable about another case where this had been
done also.

FOGLEMAN: And was that an occult related…?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir, it was.

PRICE: Alright, Dr. Griffis, in the factors that you
had testified to earlier, one of the factors you
were asked if the date May the 5th meant something
as far as, what, the satanic calendar, I think,
something to that effect?

GRIFFIS: Ah, yes.

PRICE: Alright now, isn’t it true that based on
materials that you and others have published, almost
any date has a significance?

GRIFFIS: No, not what I have published, sir.

PRICE: Alright, well, did you help publish, are you
familiar with the satanic cult awareness materials
that list you as an acknowledgement or credit, this
one is actually presented by Gaylen Hurst and Robert
L. Morris, but lists you as one of, as the first
person listed for providing information
documentation?

GRIFFIS: I like this, they took one of my drawings
(laughs). It’s one of the drawings out of my own
work, which is copyrighted. Thank you. (laughter)

PRICE: I’ll get you an address.

GRIFFIS: Yeah, thanks. (laughs) Uh, first of all,
this is Larry Jones, not Larry Holmes, of Boise,
Idaho. Sandy Galant-Daly, that is not her name
anymore. Curt Jackson I’ve talked to once, and these
other two gentle—uh, people from DIS, I have no idea
who they are, and…

PRICE: Let me, the one part I was…

GRIFFIS: …and this gentleman here, Gaylen Hurst, I
did not give him permission to use my material.

PRICE: Okay, if I could borrow this just for a
second.

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

PRICE: In here, there lists, there appears to be a
calendar of certain dates. I don’t know if this is
something you’re familiar with.

GRIFFIS: That is not my calendar.

PRICE: Okay, then you have a calendar?

GRIFFIS: There’s a calendar that I use. It’s in the,
it’s on the back which has 13 dates on it.

PRICE: All right, and the dates are, and I believe
one of the dates that you were, made reference to
was May the 1st?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

PRICE: All right. And, of course these murders took
place either May the 5th or May the 6th, which would
have been within—

GRIFFIS: It is based, a lot of times what they will
do is based on where that calendar will fall within
a week they may do it on the weekend or if it’s
close to a full moon they’ll wait and do it then.

PRICE: All right, but any murder takes place on a
particular day, right?

GRIFFIS: Yeah.

PRICE: All right, and so, and once there’s a
particular date, that date is either close to, or
far away, or exactly on a particular date on, on a
calendar, for example, that you may have, correct?

GRIFFIS: I told you, counselor, I only have 13 days
that I—

PRICE: You have 13 days.

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: And May the 1st is one of your days?

GRIFFIS: Yes sir. And the day before that is
Walpurgisnacht.

PRICE: Okay, Walpurs—

GRIFFIS: Walpurgisnacht.

PRICE: Walpurgisnacht, and that’d be…

THE COURT: Spell that.

GRIFFIS: W-A-L-P-E-R-N-A-U-C-H-T (note by Sally…I
looked online for Walpernaucht, Walpersnaught and
Walpersnacht, which is how I thought it was spelled,
to get a correct spelling, and Walpurgisnacht was
what showed up with online. Griffis’s spelling is
transcribed exactly as he spelled it in court and is
wrong despite his expertise in occult/cult topics.)

PRICE: And that would be April 30th?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

PRICE: All right. But as far as looking at your
evidence in this particular case, you’re not stating
that the murders were committed on May 5th because
of these particular dates, are you?

GRIFFIS: No, just that they were close to it, yes,
sir.

PRICE: Close to a particular date. All right. And
you indicated that some groups use a moon, well,
based on nature, there are some days that there’s
moon, full moons, quarter moons, half moons, no
moon.

GRIFFIS: Usually full moon.

PRICE: Usually full moon?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

PRICE: All right, and what, you’re saying that some
groups commit murders on full moons?

GRIFFIS: Hold services on full moons

PRICE: All right, are you saying that this murder
was held at a occult service? In your opinion?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: So you’re saying that the murders that took
place on May the 5th…

GRIFFIS: …were committed during the act or they were
working on—

(Audio ends and picks up a few seconds later)

PRICE: …is committing a sexual murder on young
children that may have nothing to do with an occult
killing. Correct?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: And the fact that, I mean, do, do some occult
killings occur with older victims?

GRIFFIS: (long pause) I have had people discuss that
with me—

PRICE: And, who are the people?

GRIFFIS: Clients. But I have never come up with
anybody.

PRICE: Alright, and you also testified that the
manner in which the victims were tied, like you used
the term “display mode,” that that indicated that it
could be an occult killing. Is it also true that the
manner in which the victims were tied could be a
basis for a sex crime that has absolutely nothing to
do with an occult crime?

GRIFFIS: I’ve never seen it done that way, sir.

PRICE: You’ve never seen it done that way?

GRIFFIS: No, sir.

PRICE: Okay, and how many of these, how many sex
crimes have you investigated, in which you say
you’ve never seen the victims tied in that manner?

GRIFFIS: (Long pause) About…t—two.

PRICE: Two. Okay.

FOGLEMAN: Now was that sex crimes in which the
victims were tied this way or sex crimes he’s
investigated? I didn’t catch that.

PRICE: (unintelligible)

GRIFFIS: How many sex crimes have I investigated?

FOGLEMAN: I wasn’t sure which, I thought that was
what the question was and I wasn’t…

PRICE: Uh, yeah, let me back up. First of all how
many sex crimes have you investigated?

GRIFFIS: I have no idea. I’ve been a police officer
for 26 years, and uh, in this consulting for eight
and I would have no idea.

PRICE: Okay, and…

GRIFFIS: But a lot of them.

PRICE: And now, when you said that there were two,
there are two sex crimes in which the victims—

GRIFFIS: …were tied

PRICE: --were tied…

GRIFFIS: But they were not tied in the manner for
which, like this.

PRICE: But…

GRIFFIS: That was your question.

PRICE: All right, yes sir.

GRIFFIS: Okay.

PRICE: As a follow-up, where is it, what research do
you have that, that the manner in which these
victims were tied means it was an occult crime?

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, he didn’t say that. He said
based on all of those factors, that’s
(unintelligible)

PRICE: All right, but I’m asking this particular
factor

THE COURT: I, I think your questions need to be
directed toward the opinion that he’s given. Now,
we’re gonna have to go back through all this
cross-examination…

PRICE: That’s correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: …with the jury again

PRICE: I’m well aware of that. That’s why I’m doing
it now.

THE COURT: All right.

PRICE: Because if the court rules that he’s not
entitled to make an opinion based on some of these
factors, that he won’t be testifying in front of the
jury, so I’m entitled to ask him the questions.

THE COURT: All right, go ahead.

PRICE: All right, but what, you said it’s a factor
the manner in which the victims were tied, where
does this, where’s the research on this?

GRIFFIS: Well, you would, you would look in such
books as “Ceremonial Magic” by Crowley, and, uh,
then from working, uh, in, with that and looking at
the way the people were displayed, ah, you know,
there, to me, appeared to be no other reason for
that type of position.

PRICE: What, did it appear to you that one reason
that the victims may have been tied this way was to
float on (under?) the water so they could drown?

GRIFFIS: No, sir.

PRICE: No. Okay did it appear to you that they could
be tied this way for a, to commit some kind of
sexual act that’s not related to the occult?

GRIFFIS: (long pause) Did it, not—no.

PRICE: Okay, and is it your testimony that you have
seen other cases in which victims were tied in this
manner and it was an occult crime?

GRIFFIS: I didn’t—I didn’t say…

PRICE: All right, so, all right then, let me ask
you, have you seen any cases in which victims were
tied in this manner, which turned out to be an
occult crime?

GRIFFIS: No.

PRICE: All right, you also mentioned that the type
of injuries was another factor in which you
considered, to this to be a, have occult overtones.
Now is this, is this based on the injuries to one of
the victims, the left side of the face?

GRIFFIS: No.

PRICE: Okay, is, is there any significance, and if
injuries to the left side of the face as opposed to
the right side of the face?

GRIFFIS: The people who practice occultism, they
will use a mid-line theory, drawing straight down
through the body, uh, the right hand side, uh, is
usually related to those things which is synonymous
with Christianity, and the left hand path is that
which is, uh, practitioners of the satanic occult
systems.

PRICE: All right now, is it also true, if a, if a
perpetrator is gonna cut a victim in the face,
there’s two ways to do it, the left side or the
right side, correct?

GRIFFIS: Correct.

PRICE: And, then there’s, would you say that there’s
a 50/50 chance that if they cut them on the left
side that it’s occult related or if they cut them on
the right side, it’s not occult related?

GRIFFIS: No.

PRICE: Okay, um, you mentioned that people who
practice the occult have this belief. Can you name
me one case that you’ve investigated in which, a, a,
it turned out to be occult killing in which the
injuries occurred to the left side of the face as
opposed to the right side of the face?

GRIFFIS: (long pause) No.

PRICE: Alright, in addition, you testified that
overkill, um, the repeated injuries was another
factor in which to consider if it was an occult
related killing. Is it also true that in a
non-occult related killing, there can be overkill?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: All right, can you name a case that you’ve
investigated which turned out to be a satanic
killing in which the victims were overkilled?

GRIFFIS: The one in, the one in Rhode Island would
be

PRICE: Just a moment, this, this is Rhode Island…

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: Now you’ve had a chance to think, what was
the date on that?

GRIFFIS: I don’t know it then, I don’t remember it
now.

PRICE: I notice on your resume you did not list any
of the cases that you’ve testified in on your
resume, is that correct?

GRIFFIS: I just…

PRICE: Is that correct?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: Okay, then it was a Rhode Island case, you
don’t remember the date, and this was a, this was a
murder case?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: Okay, and do you recall who the defense
lawyer was?

GRIFFIS: No, I didn’t, I didn’t testify in that
case.

PRICE: All right, you did not testify. Did you, did
you do some consulting?

GRIFFIS: With the police.

PRICE: With the police. All right. All right,
besides the, the one Rhode Island case, and this, I
believe you testified earlier that you couldn’t
remember the name of this one—

GRIFFIS: And the one in Michigan.

PRICE: And the one in Michigan, all right, the one
in Michigan, was this also an overkill?

GRIFFIS: They chopped her up.

PRICE: Chopped her up. Okay, you said “they.” Who is
it, who is the “they” in that case?

GRIFFIS: It was, uh, a young male and his wife.

PRICE: Okay, and what, what, um, belief system did,
did they have in the Michigan case?

GRIFFIS: In both Rhode Island and Michigan, the
person was killed inside the pentagram, and, uh,
during that, during the time, they were carrying out
some kind of ritual.

PRICE: All right, and was there an actual pentagram
kind of drawn out at the crime scene?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: In both the Rhode Island case—

GRIFFIS: Well, the one crime, the one Michigan case,
it was from talking with the, the defendant, it had
been there but the police didn’t catch it. The one
in, the one in Rhode Island, it was still on the
ground.

PRICE: All right, now have you had a chance to look
at the crime scene photographs in this particular
case?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: All right, and would you agree with me that
there’s no evidence based on the crime scene
photographs of a pentagram ever being present at the
crime scene?

GRIFFIS: I, I did not see one.

PRICE: Okay, and is there any other evidence of a
pentagram at our, at the crime scene in this
particular case?

GRIFFIS: Not that I’m aware of.

PRICE: Okay. All right, in addition you had
testified that torture was another factor to
consider in basing your opinion, uh, is it also true
that you can have torture and it doesn’t necessarily
have to be a occult related crime?

GRIFFIS: True.

PRICE: True. All right, the issue, or the factor of
absence of blood, it’s, it’s your belief or your
testimony that absence of blood at a crime scene is
another factor to consider in whether or not it’s a
cult related killing?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: All right, now, uh, is also, could the
absence of blood be explained by the, uh, victims
being killed someplace else and just being brought
to the, the location and, and dumped there?

GRIFFIS: Yeah.

PRICE: Okay.

GRIFFIS: Sure.

PRICE: And you mentioned that it, that, that
sometimes, in fact you said the word “they”, they
take blood and store it and consume blood?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: Okay, is there any evidence in this case of
anyone consuming any blood?

FOGLEMAN: That was part of the hypothetical.

PRICE: Okay, there was one, there’s been some
testimony that one defendant, um, sucked a penis of
blood. All right, now, would the, based on that
hypothetical, would the one person sucking a penis,
sucking blood out, and two other persons having
multiple injuries, if blo—um, yeah, which is caused
by the stabbings and additional blood, did, did the
sucking of blood out of one person’s penis would not
get rid of all the other blood at the crime scene,
correct?

GRIFFIS: No.

PRICE: Okay, and do you have any evidence of any, in
this particular case, of any, anybody storing any
blood?

GRIFFIS: That’s not been brought to my attention.

PRICE: Okay. All right, is the placement of the
bodies in water a factor in deciding whether or not
this is a satanic killing?

GRIFFIS: It would, not in itself, but would lend a
more, more credence in total.

PRICE: All right, is it also possible that the
bodies were placed in water in order to drown the
victims?

GRIFFIS: Could be.

PRICE: Okay, and I’m sure you’ve read in the
autopsies what two of the three victims were
drowned.

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: And is it also possible to place the bodies
in water so that it would be harder for um, um,
anybody to find the bodies until later on?

GRIFFIS: Yeah, I don’t know how deep the water was.

PRICE: Is the factor that the victims were the age
of 8, is, is that a factor that you considered in
making your opinion?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: Okay, does that, obviously, presuppose that
the defendants knew the ages of the victims?

GRIFFIS: Am I assuming that they knew that…

PRICE: Yes.

GRIFFIS: Ah, that was not discussed with Mr.
Fogleman.

PRICE: Okay, now is 8 a factor because that is a
witches’ number? What’s the significance of 8?

GRIFFIS: Okay, in Crowley’s, in Crowley’s work, he
discusses that, uh, sex before 8 or you lose the
magical power.

PRICE: Sex before 8, or lose magical power. Okay, so
that if the victims were all 8 years old, then that
wouldn’t be sex before 8, correct?

GRIFFIS: I said s—8? I’m sorry. Not—nine. Eight or
before.

PRICE: Eight or before. Excuse me. Now, but is there
a particular cult that, um, supports that viewpoint?
You said in Crowley’s work.

GRIFFIS: Occult group? Yes.

PRICE: And what occult group is that?

GRIFFIS: He has done a lot of writing which is
synonymous with a group called OTO, or Ordo Temporus
Originus. (Note by Sally: When I tried to find how
to spell this online, I found that this group is
called Ordo Templi Orientis)

PRICE: And what does that group, uh, live or
practice or whatever?

GRIFFIS: All over the world.

PRICE: All over the world. Okay. So that’s the basis
of the, are you basing 8 because there’s a,
(unintelligible) being a witches’ number?

GRIFFIS: Part, you know, I, I, counselor, I don’t go
from zero to 10 in one bound. I try and put it all
together.

PRICE: All right, but I guess what I’m confused
about is some of the factors that you’ve talked
about, it appears that you’ve taken them from
certain philosophies of Wiccan religion and other
parts are satanic.

GRIFFIS: What are you talking about with Wicca?

PRICE: Okay, are you considering Wicca as any factor
in this murder?

GRIFFIS: No.

PRICE: You’re not?

GRIFFIS: No.

THE COURT: What’s the difference in an occult and
what I call a cult? I don’t know the difference.
What is the difference? Is there?

GRIFFIS: Yes, there are, sir. Uh (strange noise) get
it so she can’t…

THE COURT: You talk to her and I’ll listen.

GRIFFIS: Okay, thank you. Uh, a occult group is a
group that’s involved in some sort of esoteric
science, uh, and they’ve been around prior to
Christianity. A cult group usually is a group that I
deal with, ones who are breaking a law, are those
who follow a particular belief style under a
charismatic leader, and, uh, in and among their
belief style (not sure he said “style”) they do
break the law. A cult may have various types of
belief systems.

THE COURT: Okay. Does the number 3, three victims,
have any significance?

GRIFFIS: One of the most powerful numbers in, uh, in
the practice of satanic belief is 666, and some
believe the beast wrote a 6 as 3. I’ve seen it in
some of the writings.

PRICE: Okay, as a follow up to that question, is the
number 3, the fact that there were three victims in
this case, is that a factor that you considered in
making your (unintelligible)?

GRIFFIS: It’s a minute part.

PRICE: Minute part.

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

PRICE: Okay, would you agree also that the number 3
is significant in Christianity, for example, and
other religions?

GRIFFIS: I can’t make that statement.

PRICE: Okay, are you familiar with the Christianity
beliefs in the trinity, the three in one?

GRIFFIS: Oh, yes.

PRICE: So there’s nothing that says that 3 is
related to occult as opposed to mainstream religion.
Um, in reaching your opinion, what was the empirical
data that you used to make that determination?

GRIFFIS: Dates.

PRICE: The dates of the murders?

GRIFFIS: The dates of the murders.

PRICE: Okay.

GRIFFIS: Uh, location.

PRICE: Okay, and explain if you can explain, sir.

GRIFFIS: Well, it’s my understanding it was a rather
private, uh, area, uh, a lot of trees around it
added to secrecy. Uh, it’s my work in the past, uh,
I’ve done a lot, these people who do this kind of
activity don’t do it at the corner walk and wait,
they do it where they’re off to theirself.

PRICE: All right.

GRIFFIS: The fact that the, amount of injuries, the
overkill. I gave credence to the way, uh, the bodies
were, uh, tied.

PRICE: But—

GRIFFIS: The occultists that I have talked to in the
past will hold services near water so that they can
wash with.

PRICE: Okay, and who are those occultists that you
have talked to in the past that hold services by the
water?

GRIFFIS: Ah, counselor, I’ve been talking to these
people since 1967. To sit down and specifically say
dates, names and places, I couldn’t tell you.

PRICE: All right, how ‘bout just one, please? Can
you name just one?

GRIFFIS: Lady Samantha. No, excuse me. Lady Feather.

PRICE: Lady Feather?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

PRICE: All right. And what murder did she commit?

GRIFFIS: She did not commit a murder.

PRICE: Okay, is there anyone who you’ve talked to
that’s a member of any of these occults that have
committed murders?

GRIFFIS: What’s this, sir?

PRICE: Is there anybody that you have talked to
that’s committed a murder by a body of water?

GRIFFIS: No, they did it close to, not a body of
water, but to a water source.

PRICE: One moment, your Honor. All right doctor, you
testified ear—a few minutes ago about an occult
murder that occurred near a body of water. Where was
this?

GRIFFIS: I didn’t say near a body of water. I said
where water—

PRICE: Water source?

GRIFFIS: --water source was present.

PRICE: Okay. First of all, what was the water
source?

GRIFFIS: Uh, a, uh, well. Hand pump.

PRICE: All right, and where did this murder take
place?

GRIFFIS: That was the one in Michigan.

PRICE: The Michigan one. All right. It’ll be just a
moment, your Honor. All right, no other questions at
this time, your Honor.

FORD: Mr. Griffis, Wicca is not a factor? That’s
what you’re saying?

GRIFFIS: I stated that what I, that, yes.

FORD: That Wicca is not a factor. Now, you read the
autopsy reports. Is that correct?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: Okay, what in the autopsy reports make you,
what in the autopsy reports indicates occult
killing?

GRIFFIS: You mean from the medical examiner’s
standpoint?

FORD: Yes. You read them, you reviewed them, you
said you relied on them in forming your opinion.
What about those reports are indicative of an occult
killing?

GRIFFIS: Overkill.

FORD: Overkill. Which child was overkilled?

GRIFFIS: Uh, the, one you--, a couple, one youth
was, ah, castrated and in and around his pubic area,
uh, there were, uh, several puncture type wounds.

FORD: So that’s what the overkill is?

GRIFFIS: That’s part of it. I didn’t get finished,
counselor.

FORD: Okay, go ahead then. Please, finish.

GRIFFIS: Ah, and then there was, ah, ah, the
injuries to the face, where his face was, uh,
mutil—cut several times. The other, another youth,
uh, was, uh, cut, uh, on top head with some type of
sharp object, and he had, uh, several wounds on his
body, uh, which, uh, in talking with the, uh,
medical examiner, uh, were, uh more than one was
death, uh, a death blow. And the, uh, third, uh,
child, uh, did not seem to have that much, you know,
less damaged.

FORD: Are you telling us that part of your opinion
is based upon one child having both been castrated
and cut severely in the face?

GRIFFIS: No.

FORD: Is that one child?

GRIFFIS: No, I said the second child also had
several wounds to him.

FORD: What about the autop—so the autopsy
photographs and the autopsy reports, the reason that
they’re important to you is because they have
evidence of overkill?

GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.

FORD: Okay. Do you know how many, you’re not a
medical doctor, are you?

GRIFFIS: No, sir.

FORD: You didn’t get one of those degrees.

GRIFFIS: No.

FORD: Okay. Um, did, do you know how many blows
Chris Byers received that were mortal blows?

GRIFFIS: In talking to the doctor, medical examiner,
I believe there were five or more.

FORD: So Chris Byers received five--

GRIFFIS: No, this is, this is the boy that had the,
uh, uh, his face cut. Is that correct?

FORD: The boy who, do you know which one is which?

GRIFFIS: No—

FOGLEMAN: They weren’t mentioned by name, your
Honor.

FORD: Well, I’m askin’ him. That’s important, I
think, what his, what the bas—how deep is his
knowledge if he knows which victim had which
injuries. I think that’s could be considered in the
weight to be given to his opinion.

THE COURT: (Unintelligible) jury…

FORD: Well, I understand that, but—

THE COURT: The jury, yes.

FORD: How many, do you know how many mortal blows—

THE COURT: If he doesn’t know the names of the
victims, describe them in some way so you can ask
him what he reviewed.

FORD: All right.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

FORD: How many, do you know how many mortal blows
Chris Byers received?

GRIFFIS: Is this the one that was castrated?

FORD: That’s the one that was castrated. How many
mortal blows or wounds did he receive?

GRIFFIS: I believe there were five.

FORD: Five. Okay, and that’s based on what the
medical examiner told you?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: That’s not based on your knowledge. Okay. How
many mortal blows did Stevie Branch receive?

GRIFFIS: Is this the one that was hit on the top of
the head?

FORD: I think they were all hit on top of the head.

GRIFFIS: No, one was had severe trauma to the head
with what appeared to be an ax or with a very sharp
(unintelligible).

FORD: With an ax, okay. Do you know how many, that
child, how many more blows did he receive?

GRIFFIS: I believe there were four.

FORD: Four. And the other, Michael Moore, how many
mortal blows did he receive?

GRIFFIS: There were only two.

FORD: Only two. Okay, now…

GRIFFIS: Now wait, when you say blows, there was one
that was, the one boy that was castrated had a
considerable amount of, uh, blows if you’re wishing
to call them blows.

FORD: But that’s not overkill, is it? It’s not
overkill unless it were to kill him again and again
and again. Is that right? Is that what you mean by
overkill? That you cut his head off or cut his heart
out. That would be overkill or is overkill just
hittin’ ‘em a number of times?

GRIFFIS: Multiple injuries. Also the fact that the
one boy had, uh, so many wounds I couldn’t count on
him in and around the pelvic area.

FORD: Okay, what about the crime scene photos was
important to you?

GRIFFIS: The, the original ones was the way they
were, uh, tied.

FORD: Okay. Anything else about the crime scene
photos that are important to you in reaching your
opinion?

GRIFFIS: Water was present.

FORD: Water, method of tying—

GRIFFIS: And it, yes, and they also showed, uh, if I
remember correctly, one of them was a kind of an
overhead and showed that the area was secluded.

FORD: Secluded. Okay. (Indicating things on a
picture…audio becomes more muffled) Mr. Griffis,
that the testimony has been that this is an
interstate highway, I-40 and I-55. This is a truck
wash. This is a truck stop, a second truck stop,
residential neighborhood.

GRIFFIS: Yes?

FORD: The testimony is that it’s in this section
right here? That’s secluded?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: You’re saying these woods, that you could
throw a stone from there to a home, is secluded?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: Okay. (Audio goes back to normal) All right,
so the crime scene photo shows water, method of
tying, and secluded.

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: Okay. Now, when I talked to you earlier this
morning, you indicated that you hadn’t formed an
opinion. Isn’t that what you told me?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: Okay. Do you have an opinion now? That this
was an occult killing, is that your opinion now?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: And it wasn’t that, that was not your opinion
when you got here this morning at 9:30. Correct?

GRIFFIS: You’ve brought, you’ve given me more
evidence than I had before.

FORD: Okay. What have you learned today that tipped
the scales, that made it a n--made it go from “I
don’t know” to “I do know”? What did you learn
today?

GRIFFIS: Uh, refreshed on the time, you know, on
the, uh, date.

FORD: So you learned, so today you learned—

GRIFFIS: I mean, no, I said I was refreshed with the
date, and, uh, I went over, uh, I had not seen that
picture that you had just showed there.

FORD: So that, that photograph right there helps you
reach your opinion, right?

GRIFFIS: Aids, yes.

FORD: Okay, and, and you had not seen that
photograph before?

GRIFFIS: No, sir, I had not.

FORD: So the fact that that photograph shows how
secluded it was, that, that helps?

GRIFFIS: Helped, helped me.

THE COURT: Had you been given the hypotheticals that
Mr. Fogleman gave just a moment ago prior to today?

GRIFFIS: Uh, part of them, yes, sir.

THE COURT: Not all of them?

GRIFFIS: No, sir.

THE COURT: All right.

FORD: What was added in to Mr. Fogleman, go on, what
else have you learned today that makes the, tips the
scales?

GRIFFIS: I’d, I’d have—

FORD: What new evidence have you obtained?

GRIFFIS: I’d have to go back, counselor, and, uh…

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I can’t even answer that, I
don’t remember…

WADLEY: He’s not asking you, Mr. Fogleman, he’s
asking--your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay, just, just a minute. All right.

FORD: What else have you learned besides refresh
your memory on the date? Does that mean you forgot
the date?

GRIFFIS: No, I just—

FORD: Or the date wasn’t that important the first
time you heard it?

GRIFFIS: No, it was just, I, putting the area, the
date, and, uh, did I have an opinion, ah, I had
talked, uh, with, uh, Mr. Fogle—uh, I should say I
talked with Mr. Fogleman last evening, uh…

FORD: I understand that but you told me just an hour
or so ago you didn’t have an opinion, and now you
do, and I wanna know what you learned that made you
form your opinion besides remembering the date and
seeing that photograph. What else did you learn to
make you form this opinion?

GRIFFIS: I had an opinion before I came here, but I
didn’t, I don’t know how you asked the question, if
I misled you I’m sorry.

FORD: Okay, you’re telling me, I, did I, I asked you
did you have an opinion as to whether this was an
occult killing. You said, “No.” Did you say that--

THE COURT: He said “I haven’t expressed my opinion
yet,” I think—

GRIFFIS: I think that’s what I said.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, actually the question I asked
related to occult overtones to the killings, not
whether or not it was an occult killing. I believe
this is the first time that he’s been asked whether
or not it was, it was his opinion that this was an
occult killing.

WADLEY: Judge, I’d like to go back and replay what
(unintelligible) was said.

THE COURT: Go ahead and ask him.

FORD: Did you have an opinion that this was an
occult killing when you got here this morning?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: And when I asked you that earlier, you told me
no, didn’t you?

GRIFFIS: I was not, I didn’t mean to mislead you.

FORD: But you did, didn’t you?

GRIFFIS: No, I don’t think the question was asked
that way.

FORD: In other words, I confused you with my
question.

GRIFFIS: I thought I was answering it correctly.

FORD: We’ll go back over lunch and find the, where
it is in the record where you got confused. Um,
those the only two new things that happened today
that…when did you form this opinion? That this was
an occult killing. When?

GRIFFIS: I had, uh, indicat—we’d gone over the
indicators of what I’d observed last evening,
solidified what I’d thought. Yes, sir.

FORD: Last night was when you formed the opinion?

GRIFFIS: That’s when I made it totally solidified.
Yes.

FORD: All right. What did you learn last night that
solidified it?

GRIFFIS: Some of the, uh, drawings, writings, some
of the pictures.

FORD: What drawings? What writings? What pictures?

GRIFFIS: There was a presen—picture presented to me
last evening of an individual, uh, that was a head
of a satanic goat, Mendes.

FORD: Okay.

GRIFFIS: Ah—

PRICE: Your Honor, at this time I’d like to object.
If the juvenile department of Crittenden County has
got anything from my client when he was with the
juvenile authorities, if that’s confidential, and if
that material has been turned over to the
prosecuting attorney’s office, which has been turned
on over to Dr. Griffis, we object to that. My
client’s entitled to confidentiality. Any
confidentiality of the juvenile department has been
breached, and we object to that being used as a
basis for this doctor’s opinion.

THE COURT: Okay.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the items that were referred
to were taken by a Crittenden County deputy sheriff
who transferred them to a juvenile officer who
transferred them to the prosecut—or to the West
Memphis Police Department.

THE COURT: I don’t know what y’all are talkin’
about. (laughter)

FORD: Well, your Honor, we, until we get a ruling,
we, we need a ruling on Mr. Price’s motion.

THE COURT: Well, he’s objecting to something that’s
completely and totally foreign to the Court. I don’t
even know what he’s talking about. I don’t know what
the witness was getting’ ready to say something
about a goat’s head. Now…

FORD: Until we get to the bottom of that, we need to
stop, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I mean we’ve been going for two
hours out of the presence of the jury. Let’s get to
the bottom of it. I agree with that.

FOGLEMAN: Now, that’s a copy, that’s a picture of a
book that was taken in execution of a search
warrant, so that really doesn’t apply to this
particular…

THE COURT: I know what that is, that came out of
the—

FOGLEMAN: Other trial.

THE COURT: What is this, a cow’s head or a goat’s
head?

FOGLEMAN: It’s a dog’s…

THE COURT: A dog’s head. Okay.

FORD: Who’s gonna, who’s gonna establish that, your
Honor? That it’s—

THE COURT: I don’t know!

FOGLEMAN: Cause it’s gonna get established that it’s
a head of some animal. I don’t care what kind of
head it is.

FORD: Where’d it come from?

FOGLEMAN: Damien’s room.

THE COURT: Okay, 115 shows a, I guess this manual.
It’s also marked Exhibit 110 with a, is that what
you call a pentagram on the top of it?

UNKNOWN: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. You see that?

UNKNOWN: Mm-hmm. (I think that’s Ford, but it’s hard
to tell.)

THE COURT: I don’t know what this is. This is
Exhibit 114. It shows a graveyard or something.

FOGLEMAN: No, that’s a—

THE COURT: Master Puppet.

FOGLEMAN: Some kind of a heavy metal poster.

FORD: Where was this, what was this, looks like—

THE COURT: I don’t know what 113 is. You’ll have to
tell me what that is, too. Looks like, I don’t know
what it is, afraid to comment.

FORD: Looks like a rock poster. Is that what that
is?

THE COURT: Okay, Exhibit 112, where does this come
from? It shows a—

FOGLEMAN: Damien’s.

THE COURT: All right, and Exhibit 111, what does
that come from?

FOGLEMAN: Damien’s.

THE COURT: Those all procured in the course of the
search?

FOGLEMAN: Those were all procured in a consensual
search at Damien’s trailer in, I wanna say May of
’92.

DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we’d object, for not only
relevance, but also that consensual search was when
he was a juvenile and, that, uh, these were turned
over to the juvenile officers, and they had them in
his file, and as we ruled in, as you ruled, I should
say, in Michael Carson’s case, juvenile files can’t
be delved into, and that’s the reason that we were
unable to delve into his past, and we say that the
same thing ought to happen here.

PRICE: We also object—

THE COURT: I made no such ruling. I allowed you to
cross-examine him with respect to any criminal
activity.

UNKNOWN: This is not criminal activity.

PRICE: We also object to the relevancy, Judge.
Anything my client had a year before the murders
have absolutely nothing to do with these murders. If
it took place a year before, that’s obviously
irrelevant.

FOGLEMAN: It has to do with, your Honor, his, his
belief system, his state of mind.

PRICE: Judge, we have the 1st Amendment in the
United States, and a person is entitled to believe,
to, they can practice their freedom of religion.
Anything that he believed, particularly, he, a lot
of these he may have had—

THE COURT: I don’t have any problem with him
practicing whatever belief he wants to. That doesn’t
mean that belief is not a part of, of relevant
evidence in a proceeding against him, however.

PRICE: Judge, if it’s, if it’s something, if it’s a
writing he had a year before the murders, it’s
obviously not relevant to this proceeding.

THE COURT: Why not?

DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we would—

FORD: Your Honor, there is a specific rule of
evidence that says one’s religious beliefs cannot be
used to say that they did or did not believe
something or

THE COURT: Well, would you like to point that out to
me? What rule of evidence is it?

FORD: I read it last night, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I’d be happy to see it.

(mumbling)

THE COURT: Were all of these, all of this stuff, was
it obtained prior to the murder?

PRICE: Yes. A year.

FOGLEMAN: Well, your Honor, after the murders, he’s
gonna get rid of everything.

THE COURT: What is your theory of admissibility on
this?

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, that it’s relevant once it’s
established that it’s a cult-related killing. This
is relevant to show his involvement and what he’s
participating in and whether this is, this is, the
proof will show this is not Wicca. Neither is this,
Wicca.

PRICE: What is that, Mr. Fogleman?

FOGLEMAN: That is satanic.

PRICE: And how are you gonna, who’s gonna testify to
that?

FOGLEMAN: Mr. Griffis.

DAVIDSON: Your Honor, the—what are you shaking your
head at me for?

GRIFFIS: I’m just, gimme a drink, counselor.

DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we—

THE COURT: I dunno, I’ve been shaking my head a
bunch too. I couldn’t tell you what about. All
right, have you found that rule of evidence?

FORD: No, no. I will.

THE COURT: I’m reminded of a rule on habit in
practice, too, that, that, uh, if you’re talking
about Rule 610, Mr. Ford, if, if religious beliefs
or opinions.

FORD: That’s the specific rule. That’s what we’re
talking about. “Evidence of the beliefs or opinions
of a witness on matters of religion is not
admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason
of their nature the credibility is impaired or
enhanced.” And that’s what they’re trying to do.

PRICE: The fact that my client has a picture a year
before the murders is a motivation?

DAVIDSON: From a skateboard magazine?

FORD: Does this Rule 404 say this is, that, that
right there is motive?

DAVIS: Well, your Honor, it’s certainly not, Rule
610 prohibits it for purposes of showing that, as to
credibility is impaired or enhanced, and certainly
what we’re doing is in no way designed to show
whether his credibility is impaired or enhanced.
What we’re showing is a belief system, and Mr. Price
says that it’s a year before and it has no
relevance. Your Honor, a belief system, somebody’s
beliefs in things that they may act on, which is
what the State is doing to try to show a motive, is
something that the fact that they believed in a year
is clearly, year before is clearly relevant. Uh,
it’s not something that, that happened one day and
goes away the next. Somebody’s beliefs that may be a
motive for causing him to act on something that
continue over a course of time.

PRICE: Judge, just because my client has writings in
his room doesn’t necessarily mean these are all his
beliefs. A, a statement out of one of this, “Incense
is used in all witchcraft ceremonies,” there’s no
evidence that any kind of incense was used at the
murder scene. Obviously, it’s not relevant. The
state is not alleging that it’s a witchcraft murder
anyway. You can go—there’s reference to a 9 ft.
circle. There’s absolutely no evidence. I asked the
officer earlier last week if there was any kind of
evidence of a 9 ft. circle. He said no. So none of
this stuff is relevant, your Honor.

DAVIS: Your Honor, one thing we might point out in
regard to the book, is that’s not a printed book.
That’s handwritten.

FORD: Your Honor, if I could (unintelligible) the
opinion of Jason Baldwin, that, if they’re going to
be able to use a juvenile file of Damien Echols to
show that he had a belief and that he acted in
conformity with that belief, then we should have
been able to inquire as to the LSD dependence of
Michael Carson, which is contained in his juvenile
file to question his credibility because he had a
drug dependence on hallucinogenics. (Crunching
sounds of somebody eating something) If they’re
gonna be allowed to use that, the evidence file, the
juvenile file of this defendant, we should be able
to use the juvenile file of that witness.

THE COURT: Can’t find what I’m looking for. You also
might wanna look at Rule 505 if you’re claiming some
kind of religious privilege, but, uh, what is habit
practice of routine? Is that 500something?

FORD: I’m not sure.

THE COURT: Is that what you’re offering if, uh, it’s
under?

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we’re offering, if the witness
is allowed to testify that it’s occult related or
occult overtones to it, then we’re offering this as
evidence of his involvement in the occult.

FORD: Is this character evidence? Is that what
you’re bringing it under?

FOGLEMAN: No. Motive. Goes to motive.

THE COURT: Well the rule, there’s rule 404B,
“Evidence of a person’s character or trait of his
character is not admissible for the purpose of
proving he had acted with conformity therewith on a
particular occasion except evidence of other crimes,
wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the
character of a person in order to show that he acted
in conformity therewith. It may, however, be
admissible for other purposes such as proof of
motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or
accident.” Here, all of this stuff we’re going
through, it doesn’t go to whether or not either of
the defendants committed the crime. It goes to that,
uh, element of motivation, intent, scheme, uh, that
sometimes the state can prove and sometimes they
can’t prove. They’re not even required to prove
motive, uh, however, and if, if they wanna attempt
to do so they have a right to do so. The, I wanna
deal first with the issue on how these items of
evidence were originally obtained, and, and, and
secondly whether or not there’s any prohibition of
their use as a result of any violation of any
juvenile code. I’m more concerned about those two
issues than I am up on the, the, the use ultimately
in trial of these exhibits. Uh, cuz I think under
Rule 404, they’re entitled to use them with the
cautionary instruction to the jury that they’re
considered only, uh, should be considered only for
the purposes of going to prove motivation of
opportunity, intent, preparation, planning,
knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or
accident, and I’ll give that cautionary direction if
I allow them. Now let’s deal with the first
proposition. How were these items of evidence
obtained?

(TAPE FLIPPED)

FOGLEMAN: As a result of his conversations he went
to the residence of Mr. Echols of Lakeshore Trailer
Park, uh, asked for permission to search Damien’s
room, searched his room, took these items, and, uh,
turned them over to Jerry Driver of the juvenile
office.

DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we’d also point out that he
was a juvenile then, and a juvenile cannot consent
to a search.

FOGLEMAN: He was a juvenile at that time, your
Honor, but it was his mother who consented to the
search, and I believe if my recollection is correct,
there were charges, juvenile charges, arising out of
what he was originally questioned about. But not
related to the pictures.

DAVIDSON: And, your Honor, those were held in his
juvenile file, and turned over to Jerry Driver from
there, and Jerry Driver then turned these over to
the prosecutor when he started on his trek.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, that was after the murders,
and there was an order entered by the court, uh,
authorizing the release of the juvenile file to the
West Memphis Police Department.

PRICE: It was an ex parte order that we were
representing Mr. Echols at the time and we did not
have a chance to object to the order—

THE COURT: Who entered it?

FOGLEMAN: I don’t remember.

PRICE: I think one of the juvenile—

FOGLEMAN: Probably, same, same order y’all got.

PRICE: I’m not blaming juvenile, Judge.

DAVIDSON: The same order we got that was approved by
Mr., Mr. Davis, right?

FORD: And you couldn’t, uh, and you wouldn’t let us
use it.

THE COURT: Now, wait a minute. One at a time, one at
a time.

FOGLEMAN: No, that related to medical privilege and
you know that.

THE COURT: If you’re talking about the stuff in the
other case, that clearly didn’t have anything to do
with the issue before the court right now. That had
to do with medical treatment. It had to do with
privileged information, medical treatment that was
required to be given by the physician.

PRICE: But that’s not true.

THE COURT: Well…take it up on appeal.

PRICE: We may do that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, if you do be sure to put that point
in, because I’ve ruled on that and I’m not gonna
rule again.

(mumbling)

THE COURT: All right, y’all wanna say anything about
how they acquired this?

PRICE: Well, you gave a copy of the juvenile code,
your Honor, that contains the section about
confidentiality.

THE COURT: Well, he’s telling me there’s an order
from the juvenile judge giving possession of these
items to, uh, law enforcement. In this case.

PRICE: At this time, we want to object to that order
because we didn’t, we haven’t had a chance to object
to it until this point.

FOGLEMAN: Well, your Honor, all I can say is that
they were given a copy of it.

PRICE: That’s true.

THE COURT: In fact, I believe you used the same
order to, to, uh, uh, receive the evidence.

PRICE: That’s correct, your Honor.

DAVIDSON: It wasn’t the same order.

THE COURT: Are there two different orders?

DAVIDSON: Yes.

THE COURT: Well, who signed them?

DAVIDSON: You—uh—

THE COURT: You wanna call Judge Wilson or, uh, Judge
Goodson in here? I know I didn’t sign ‘em. If I did
I don’t remember anything about it.

DAVIDSON: No, you did not.

FOGLEMAN: I, I think it may have been Judge Goodson.

THE COURT: I think it was Judge Goodson, the one
y’all showed me the other day, and he also indicated
to me that he didn’t intend to turn over any medical
files, or he just happened to get ‘em. What do you
wanna do? Do you wanna spend the rest of the day
hashing this out? It’s all right with me.

PRICE: Yes, sir. Sure.

THE COURT: Well, it’s five minutes to twelve. The
court will be in recess until 1:00.

(Gavel pounds, random court noise, tape cuts off.)

(Tape cuts back on, random noise still present.)

THE COURT: Nobody’s even asked him about the missing
parts.

FORD: I haven’t got there yet!

THE COURT: You haven’t asked him about whether the
severed penis has anything to do with it or whether
the phallic symbol means anything, whether or not
the missing testicles mean anything. I’m gonna go
back here and take a recess.

GRIFFIS: Is this—

THE COURT: Oh, you can stand down.

GRIFFIS: Thanks. Okay. This place doesn’t have any
air.

(Tape cuts off and back on again.)

THE COURT: …proffered testimony of occult expert and
other occult activities to prove motive, is more
prejudicial than probative, or vice versa. All
right, you may proceed. Where’s my witness? Did we
forget to tell him to come back? (laughter) Uh, Mr.,
ah…Griffith? Was that his name? Griffis?

(Mumbling)

THE COURT: Well, I don’t really know that we need
him. Weren’t y’all through questioning him anyway?

WADLEY: Mr. Griffis? No. We had broken up over this
juvenile file, which he indicated was the basis of
(unintelligible)

THE COURT: I think what he indicated that that was
some additional information that he’d been (tape
cuts out)

WADLEY: …foundation for the (unintelligible).

THE COURT: Well, I think he can. I think he can use
evidence that’s either admissible or non-admissible
for the basis for his opinion.

WADLEY: Well, I’ll agree that’s the rule. I just--

THE COURT: It doesn’t have to be necessarily be
admissible for him to utilize it for his opinion. In
fact, they can actually consider hearsay and matters
that are not admissible in order to formulate an
opinion.

WADLEY: But your Honor, he can’t consider that,
Judge. If that is the situation, that he, like that
other situation, if it was gathered in a way that it
you should not have been able to gather it, then he
shouldn’t be able to consider it.

FORD: Your Honor, there needs to be, there needs to
be extreme caution used here about whether he starts
to formulate any opinions based on the statement of
Jessie Misskelley.

THE COURT: I don’t know if he has. Has he?

FOGLEMAN: What about Jessie Misskelley? I haven’t
shown him anything on Misskelley, so he might wanna…

WADLEY: So, we don’t have him, we don’t have to
worry about him saying, “Well I took into account
the statements of Jessie Misskelley.”

THE COURT: Okay. Well, gentlemen, just, I’ll point
out to you Rule 703—come on up, please. “The facts
or data in the particular case upon which an expert
bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived
by or made known to him at or before the hearing. If
of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the
particular field in forming opinions or inferences
upon the subject, the facts or data need not be
admissible in evidence.” Like I said, there are two
issues I wanted to take up. One is how those items
that you just asked about, Mr. Ford, were acquired,
and I can’t remember what the second one was now. It
seemed important at the time. What was it?

FOGLEMAN: How they were acquired…

WADLEY: Relevancy. Whether or not it was—

THE COURT: Well, relevancy, relevancy of all of it
is the issue.

WADLEY: I thought, I thought the court’s inquiry,
your Honor, was firstly, what was acquired and
secondly, how was it acquired? The manner in which
it was ac—acquired. Those same issues that we dealt
with earlier concerning…

(mumbling)

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, there’s no dispute, I don’t
believe, as to how we acquired it.

WADLEY: I don’t know. I don’t know.

DAVIS: In the statements Mr. Fogleman made earlier
before lunch (unintelligible) that they were turned
over to the juvenile authorities, we agree with all
that.

(Mumbling)

THE COURT: All right, I’ve reviewed, uh, an order in
that regard…

PRICE: Yeah, but you don’t—

THE COURT: …what filed of the 19th day of July1993,
signed by Judge David Goodson, where, um, um, all of
these records were ordered turned over to the
Crittenden County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney’s
office and the West Memphis Police Department to
assist in a criminal investigation.

UNKNOWN: Your Honor, that—

THE COURT: (clears throat)…subject to a Arkansas
Code Annotated 9-27-309, which is the statute on
confidentiality, and that provides that “all records
may be closed and confidential within the discretion
of the court.” Here clearly the court exercised its
discretion and made those files available not only
to the state and the law enforcement but to the
defendants as well. Some mention was made as to, um,
what was the young man’s name?

FORD: Michael Carson.

THE COURT: Carson? You all wanted to utilize medical
evidence that had been turned over, uh, as well, and
that evidence had, was compulsory evidence obtained
by action of the court that bore the doctor-patient
privilege, and I ruled that that evidence, even
though it might have been turned over under court
order to defense counsel by the juvenile court, that
the physician-patient privileged communications
still pertained, not withstanding the order. Now,
that deals with part of it. Now, the next issue is
whether or not those four or five items…where are
they? They were up here. Whether or not they’re one,
too remote to be considered as relevant in this
case, number two, whether or not they’re even
relevant to any issue in this case, number three,
whether or not it’s an attempt on part of the State
to prove, to prove character, testi—character,
produce character evidence and suggest by that
production, that the defendant acted in conformity
with that, uh, evidence. And of course I point out
Rule 404B, that an exception to that rule is where
the evidence is offered to prove motive, intent,
scheme or design. The only relevancy in this case
for this type of testimony is to prove the
possibility of a motive.

DAVIDSON: Your Honor, along those lines, we could
certainly argue that the, ah, obtaining of this
material was too remote from the alleged crimes to
make it relevant in any manner.

THE COURT: All right, anybody else wanna have
anything to say?

DAVIDSON: In that it was in, when, 1991?

THE COURT: ’92.

DAVIDSON: 1992? And also, your Honor, that, uh, we
still maintain that this was part of a juvenile
record and that, uh, uh—

THE COURT: Well, juvenile court dealt with it, not
me.

DAVIDSON: Those are confidential items in that, uh,
and that that order was obtained, uh, without us
ever being, ever being there or apprised of it, uh,
an ex parte order.

FORD (maybe Fogleman): It was an ex parte order,
your Honor.

PRICE: Because furthermore, if you actually look at
these items, there’s nothing in here that’s relevant
to this murder. Nothing in here relevant to, to any
type of motive, or any evidence at the crime scene
or anything of that nature.

DAVIDSON. And because of that, the nature of that
would be so highly inflammatory that its prejudicial
effect would outweigh any probative value that it
would have.

DAVIS: Your Honor, the State’s basis for believing
that the probativeness outweighs the prejudicial
effect is that in this case, because of the bizarre
nature of the type murders that we’re talking about,
we feel it’s very important and probably is going to
be a prerequisite for the State to show some type of
motive for these type killings. Otherwise, I think,
people on the jury may very well, it may be beyond
their comprehension how something or why something
like this could take place, and I think it’s going
to be very important for the State to establish a
motive as to why it occurred. We’ve brought forth an
expert that has an opinion that these motives, that
these killings were cult-related. Other evidence
that reflects that directly ties these defendants in
this particular case, these items directly tie Mr.
Echols to a, and I think the expert can indicate
that these items show a, a practice and a set of
cult-related beliefs and practices of Mr. Echols,
then that becomes highly probative for the State to
put on in order to establish that motive, which
although not required to be proven by the State, in
a case of this nature, it’s nearly incumbent on the
State to present evidence in that nature. And here
you have evidence that is relevant and probative as
to that particular matter, and, uh, any evidence
that is detrimental to the defendant, they can
allege is prejudicial, but obviously, uh, the Court
does not keep out evidence just because it’s
prejudicial. It’s if that prejudice substantially
outweighs the probative value. In this case, because
of the need to establish motive, that probative
value is important.

PRICE: Judge, one of the items in here is a cure for
worms. Worms has absolutely nothing to do with this
case whatsoever. That’s not one of the factors that
could be a basis of a cult or a occult related
killing. A cure for worms is just simply not
relevant. Another thing—a cure for cramps. A cure
for cramps is not relevant to any issue whatsoever
in this case. A formula for a love spell is not
related to any issue in this case. To improve the
chances of success is not related to any issues in
this case. And I, I, there are other examples in
here as well. And just the fact that my client has
some writings, I mentioned earlier that the rites
are performed within a nine-foot circle. There’s no
testimony, I even asked Officer Allen and Ridge if
there’s any evidence of a nine-foot circle being at
the crime scene. He said no. So obviously that can’t
have any relevance. Incense is used at all
witchcraft ceremonies. There’s no evidence
whatsoever that the State has produced that there
was any kind of incense at the crime scene. This is
simply, it’s just not relevant, and it’s more the
State’s, um, the State is doing this to, to, to, to,
I don’t know what they’re doing this for, Judge. But
it’s certainly damaging to my client. It’s not, it
is not relevant to any--

THE COURT: It’s not relative, relevant, how is it
damaging to your client? You can make all those
arguments to the jury.

PRICE: Okay, if it’s not relevant, then, that’s,
it’s not, it’s not—

DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I would also like to point out
the time. This was over a year ago.

THE COURT: I’ve already, I’m the one that raised
that issue for you, when I said, uh…
PRICE: Judge, if this had anything to do with
killing people, sacrificing children, sexual crimes,
anything of that nature, perhaps it might be
relevant.

THE COURT: I don’t know, I haven’t heard what this
gentleman has to say about what’s written in there,
whether it has any relevancy or not to witchcraft or
devil worship or occultism or whatever we’re
characterizing it as.

PRICE: But even, even these pictures can’t be
relevant for any…

THE COURT: I don’t know.

PRICE: …any issue in this case.

(Whispering)

THE COURT: (In hushed tones) On the courtyard, or
tell the rest of them to get rid of them. Take care
of it. (Normal voice) It’s nothing.

DAVIS: Your Honor, Mr. Price seems to be arguing
that if there is no statements in here of murder or
whatever that that indicates that this item is not
relevant. What we intend, that, what we believe the
relevance is, that there will be testimony induced
that these crimes had the trappings of an occult
related homicide, and evidence that connects and
shows a belief system of this defendant and, and
shows writings of this defendant, which this expert
can say are occult in nature, then become important
as a factor in establishing that motive which we
intend to prove and put evidence on by the
(unintelligible).

THE COURT: Okay, the next issue then is whether or
not Rule 610 applies, whether or not it falls into
the area of religious beliefs or opinions. And the
rule is, "evidence of the beliefs or opinion of the
witness on matters of religion is not admissible for
the purpose of showing that by reason of their
nature his credibility is impaired or enhanced."
Ofcourse, Mr. Echols is a defendant and not a
witness, so I'm not sure that applies but I guess
the theory would in some way. Anybody wanna talk to
that?

DAVIS: Your Honor, the reason that we're putting
this -- I think 610 is inapplicable because, number
one, it refers to a witness, and it's a rule that is
designed to limit an attack on credibility of a
particular witness by religious beliefs and that
sort of thing. In this particular case, those
religious beliefs or -- I guess you could call those
religious beliefs -- those ideas or set of beliefs
are the basis for the State's evidence as to motive
in this particular case. And credibility of a
witness based on beliefs is not even an issue.

DAVIDSON: Well, we think it is, your Honor. We think
that is the issue and that is the motive that
they're trying to show. And furthermore, I believe
that this does apply even though it does say witness
-- rules of evidence do not normally talk about a
witness, whether he's a plaintiff, a defendant, or a
defendant in a criminal case. Very few of them do
differentiate there. And we think that it certainly
applies in this instance.

THE COURT: Anybody else got anything they wanna say?
(Pause) Are you trying to offer this under the
theory of Rule 406, habit routine and practice? That
is, "Admissibility. Evidence of the habit of a
person or of the routine practice of an
organization, whether corroborated or not and
regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is
relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or
organization on a particular occasion was in
conformity with the habit or a routine practice." In
"The method of proof. Habit or routine practice may
be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or
by specific instances of conduct sufficient in
number to warrant a finding that the habit existed
or that the practice was routine."

FORD: Your Honor, this witness doesn't know these
defendants, so how can he offer any evidence of
habit or routine?

THE COURT: I'll just ask if that was one of their
theories of admissibility.

DAVIS: Your Honor --

FORD: They haven't established that foundation.

DAVIS: I think we're talking apples and oranges
because what Mr. Ford is talking about is the
opinion of this witness. And what we're talking
about is this evidence here. Frankly I don't think
the Rule of 406 -- is that what you've just recited?

THE COURT: Uh-hum.

DAVIS: I don't think that's --

THE COURT: Applicable.

DAVIS: -- meets this factual situation. I think it's
403(b).

THE COURT: 404(b).

DAVIS: 404(b).

THE COURT: Alright, anybody else wanna say anything?

DAVIDSON: Well not now, if he concedes that 406
doesn't apply.

THE COURT: I didn't really think it applied myself.
(Pause) Alright, I'm gonna try to deal with the four
or five items of proffered evidence. One, the Court
would be of the opinion that inasmuch as a juvenile
court order was entered transferring the custody of
the proffered evidence to the West Memphis Police
Department or the prosecuting attorney's office for
use in a criminal investigation, that Judge Goodson
in entering that order in compliance with Arkansas
statute 9-27-309 made a discretionary decision that
those items were no longer necessary to be kept
confidential, and therefore the juvenile code would
not apply. I don't think there's any dispute that
that's how the State came by possession of the
items, so in that regard they'll be admissible in
this case. I'm also going to rule that inasmuch as
the State has the burden of proof in this case and
inasmuch as a good portion of the case is
circumstantial, that it is necessary and appropriate
that the State prove motive if they can. And, by
this proffered testimony the State is attempting to
establish motivation to enhance its case -- I
suppose that'll be the way to put it. And I'm going
to rule that the probative value of the testimony
with regard -- or the proffered testimony with
regard to motivation outweighs any possible
prejudicial effect. I further will instruct the jury
that the testimony with regard to occult or satanism
or any other term you wanna add to it that relates
to the same thing, cultism, cult, occult, satism,
that it may be considered only for the purposes of
determining motivation, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence
or mistake or accident, that is offered only to show
-- for the limited purposes of establishing motive.
Anybody else wanna say anything?

FORD: Your Honor, I hadn't -- I thought you were
ruling on these particular items, but I hadn't
finished my questioning --

THE COURT: Alright go ahead --

FORD: -- of this witness with respect --

THE COURT: Go ahead. I'm ready to make that ruling
now but if you wanna go ahead and question him
further, I'll allow you to do it.

FORD: I'd like the Court to take into consideration
additional facts that may be brought out on
cross-examination before it makes its ruling.

THE COURT: I'm willing to do that, so go ahead. The
Court has a few questions that none of you all have
asked him about either. At least I don't think I
asked him that.

FORD: Maybe I'll get it covered some of those areas,
maybe not.

THE COURT: Alright. Go ahead.

FORD: Is it your opinion, and do you want to tell
this jury, that these crimes were motivated by
occult beliefs?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: The only -- and therefore -- the only reason
these murders -- this is my question -- the only
reason that these murders occurred was for an occult
ritual?

GRIFFIS: What I am saying -- what I'm prepared to
say is that the people -- the evidence that I was
shown was indicative that the people were using the
trapping of occultism.

FORD: But is it your opinion that the motive for the
killings, the motive for the killings is occult
beliefs? Is that the motive? Is it your opinion that
the motive for these killings was an occult belief?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: And what is the basis of that opinion?

GRIFFIS: The material that I was seen last evening.
And the other things that I went over with you
prior, counselor.

FORD: Do you have any evidence, any evidence to
establish a link between Jason Baldwin and the
occult? Do you have any evidence?

GRIFFIS: In the material that I was seen -- have
seen -- was from the crime scene general, and also
what the prosecutor explained to me coming from Mr.
Echols' area.

FORD: Do you have any evidence that establishes a
link between Jason Baldwin and the occult? That's my
question.

GRIFFIS: The question is if -- I have not talked to
any of the officers if Jason Baldwin was there that
night.

FORD: Do you have --

GRIFFIS: No.

FORD: -- any evidence that establishes a link
between Jason Baldwin and the occult?

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I hadn't asked -- informed him
of anything at this point related to Jason Baldwin
--

THE COURT: Was he aware of the testimony of the, the
--

FORD: I'm asking him, your Honor. I'd like to know
what his opinion is based on and I want to know,
does he have any evidence that links Jason Baldwin
to the occult.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor --

FORD: And I'd like an answer.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor -- and I'll enter an objection,
Mr. Ford.

FORD: Is that an improper question?

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, my objection is that it's an
unfair question to this witness to ask him related
to things in relation to the defendant Jason Baldwin
when -- at this point, this witness has not been
provided any information hypothetical about the
sucking of the blood of the penis, which generic --
it didn't say that the witness said that Jason
Baldwin sucked the blood from the penis. Let's add
that into the mix.

FORD: This is my cross-examination and I think it's
a proper question. I wanna ask him.

THE COURT: Alright, and then he's gonna get up and
ask him --

FORD: That's fine.

THE COURT: -- would that alter and change your
opinion, so (unintelligble).

FORD: Do you have any evidence that links Jason
Baldwin to the occult?

GRIFFIS: Not until his comment, no.

FORD: If this comment was false -- for purposes of
my questioning, if that evidence is a lie, do you
have any evidence that links Jason Baldwin to the
occult?

GRIFFIS: Not at this point.

FORD: None. Okay. So the entire basis for your link
from Jason Baldwin to the occult is based on the
statements you just heard from this prosecutor?

GRIFFIS: Yes.

FORD: That's the entire --

GRIFFIS: No, plus the fact that I understand he was
present.

FORD: You understand he was -- who told you he was
present? These men right here tell you he was. If
they're mistaken --

GRIFFIS: Yeah.

FORD: -- do you have any evidence that links him?

GRIFFIS: No sir, I do not.

FORD: Do you know of any evidence that puts him at
the crime scene?

GRIFFIS: Only what they have given me.

FORD: Only what they've given you, okay.

GRIFFIS: Yes sir.

FORD: Now, let me ask you this. If there was
evidence -- testimony in this case, that the
homicides occurred somewhere else, and not in this
little patch of woods, that it occurred somewhere
else, and they brought them in and dumped them.
Would that change your opinion as to this being an
occult killing?

GRIFFIS: That fact alone?

FORD: Yes.

GRIFFIS: No.

FORD: It would not. If there was evidence in this
case that said that they were taken, tied up,
gagged, held in another location, later killed,
brought back and dumped, would that change your
opinion?

(Pause)

GRIFFIS: It would lessen the degree of probability.

FORD: Okay.

THE COURT: Do you have any evidence of that nature
or anticipate any evidence of that nature?

FORD: I think I've already got it, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, you left me somewhere.

FORD: I'm asking him a good-faith hypothetical
question, your Honor, by the evidence I believe.

DAVIS: Your Honor, is it based on evidence in this
case?

THE COURT: That's what I was asking.

DAVIS: At least to this point?

FORD: I asked him if there'd been evidence, if there
was evidence in this case of those facts would that
change his opinion. That's what I've – I've already
got testimony from the medical examiner that it
probably occurred somewhere else. I also have
testimony that the medical examiner that there's
evidence that these boys were gagged. I've got just
as much testimony of that than they've got of
anything else from the medical examiner. Those are
reasonable inferences, your Honor, that I can argue
from that testimony of the medical examiner, and you
know it.

DAVIS: Your Honor, as to reasonable inferences that
can be argued, but to make the statement in the form
of a hypothetical that there is evidence in the case
to that effect. I think is -- I think presents an
unfair hypothetical that's not based on the evidence
in this case.

FORD: I haven't had a chance, your Honor, to present
my case yet.

THE COURT: Alright. If you think there's evidence of
that nature.

(Mumbling)

THE COURT: Anything else?

FORD: What evidence do you have to establish that
these boys were tortured? That means that they were
conscious and aware of their pain at the time the
injuries were inflicted. Do you have any evidence to
establish that they were conscious?

GRIFFIS: I talked with the medical examiner -- and,
the amount -- the injuries to the one boy's (someone
coughes - inaudible) were not (?) one-inch stabs,
were not death threathning.

FORD: But do you have any evidence to establish that
he -- whether that was first, whether that was last,
whether he was conscious, unconscious when that
occurred?

GRIFFIS: No, I don't.

FORD: So you have no evidence to establish that the
children -- your Honor.

FOGLEMAN: Hadn't said a word.

(Laughter)

FORD: Your Honor, when I'm asking a witness a
question I would -- I feel that the Court should not
be rolling his eyes around. That's a comment on my
questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. If I rolled my eyes -- go ahead.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor --

FORD: Because he's indicated the basis of his
opinion is torture. And you have to be conscious to
be tortured.

FOGLEMAN: And, your Honor --

THE COURT: The medical examiner's report indicated
that two of them drowned. I don't know whether they
were conscious or not but they certainly weren't
dead at the time they were inserted in the water.

FORD: He's not qualified to say these boys were
tortured, because he's not a medical doctor, he
doesn't know what injury happened first, what injury
happened second, whether they were conscious or
unconscious. And if he can't say that then he can't
intimate they were tortured. Cause there's no
medical evidence to establish these boys were
tortured. Because they could have been -- the very
first blow could have knocked them unconscious and
the rest of it occur when they're unconscious.

THE COURT: Those are all things you can argue
appropriately.

FORD: But he's not qualified to say they were
tortured, he's not a doctor.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, can I respond to the argument?

THE COURT: Yes.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, just as Mr. Ford says that
he's got a reasonable basis for arguing these other
things, there's certainly a reasonable basis in the
evidence for inferring and arguing that the wounds
to the face and the wounds to the genital area
occurred while they were conscious.

THE COURT: It can be argued both ways I suppose.

FORD: When there's no medical evidence to establish
what happened first?

THE COURT: Well, it can be argued both ways.

FORD: Do you have any evidence to establish that
these boys were conscious at any time when these
injuries were inflicted? Do you?

GRIFFIS: No.

(Pause)

THE COURT: Anything else?

FORD: Do you have any evidence to establish that the
motive for these -- that Jason Baldwin had any
motive to kill these boys based on occultism? Do you
have any evidence to do that? To say this young man
was involved in the occult and that's the motive for
these killings?

FORD: Do you have any evidence to establish that the
motive of that young man was occult in nature and
that's why he did these killings?

GRIFFIS: The only indicator which was added by Mr.
Fogleman last evening.

FORD: Are all people involved in the occult killers?

GRIFFIS: No sir.

FORD: Are all crimes of this nature occultic in
nature? Are all murders where these type of injuries
happen, are they all occultic?

GRIFFIS: No sir.

FORD: What separates this one from those that
aren't?

GRIFFIS: First of all the dates. I went over that --

FORD: The date.

GRIFFIS: The dates. The full moon. I still stand by
my belief on the way they were tied. And talking
last night to the counselor about the sucking of
blood from the penis.

FORD: He told you that last night?

GRIFFIS: Yes sir.

FORD: I thought you just told us the first time you
heard it was right now in this courtroom.

GRIFFIS: No sir.

FORD: You knew about that last night?

GRIFFIS: Yes sir.

FORD: Okay.

THE COURT: Was the particular defendant identified
last night?

GRIFFIS: They said one.

THE COURT: You didn't know which one?

GRIFFIS: No.

THE COURT: Alright. Was the fact that the penis was
removed, is that significant at all in your opinion?

GRIFFIS: The fact of the damage to the sex organs?

THE COURT: Yes, the fact that the--

GRIFFIS: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: -- testicles were missing, was that any
factor in your consideration of your opinion?

GRIFFIS: Yes sir, it was.

THE COURT: Alright. Anybody else have any other
questions?

FORD: What is your understanding of the injuries to
the sex organs of Mr. Byers? What is your
understanding of what the injuries were?

GRIFFIS: Mr. Byers is -- counselor, I looked at the
medical examiner numbers and they didn't have the
gentleman's name on them.

FORD: Okay. The young man who was sexually
mutilated, what is your understanding of what
occurred to him?

GRIFFIS: His penis was removed, his scrotom,
testicle area. He had considerable stabbing wound
area in the groin near the pubic area. The total (?)
of the penis was gone.

FOGLEMAN: Just for clarification purposes, do you
know what -- you said the (?), what are you talking
about there?

GRIFFIS: The head of the penis.

FOGLEMAN: What about the shaft?

GRIFFIS: Was also gone. I mean, the outside. The
inside was there.

FOGLEMAN: Okay.

THE COURT: Anything else? Anybody wanna make any
statements for the record?

FORD: Your Honor, for the record, we feel that this,
number one, this witness is not qualified to testify
as to overkill, because he's not qualified to say
which blows were mortal and which blows were not
mortal, 'cause he's not a doctor, a medical doctor.

THE COURT: Can he not rely upon the statement of the
medical examiner in that regard?

FORD: If he hasn't testified that the medical
examiner told him that there were five mortal blows.
The medical examiner didn't testify to that in this
case. Because if these boys had recei -- two of them
were still alive, your Honor, when they were dumped
in the waters.

THE COURT: Seems like I reflect on the medical
examiner's testimony, that his testimony was that
more than one of the injuries he observed on each of
the defendants could have resulted in ultimate
death. Now whether or not they died immediately from
that blow or not, I don't think he -- anybody can
voice an opinion. But again, I don't remember it
exactly myself, but I think that was the substance
of his testimony that they could have died from any
one of a number of injuries.

FORD: I'm asking -- moving in limine that this
witness be instructed not to make reference to the
number of mortal blows because he's not qualified to
do so. And although the opinion may be based on
statements that are hearsay, those statements cannot
be injected into the record in that fashion.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, they can if they ask it, and
that's how it came out the first time.

FORD: I'm not gonna ask him. I wanna know for this
in-camera proceeding, but I'm asking that --

THE COURT: You'd be entitled, and that's assuming
I'll allow the testimony like I indicated I would,
you'd be entitled to cross-examine him on the basis,
and the factual basis for his opinion. And if you
ask him what his belief or opinion -- that's not the
right way. If you ask him about what he considered
in the medical examiner's report as a basis for
formulating his opinion as to the multiplicity of
wounds, then he's gonna be permitted to testify what
his view of that testimony was.

FORD: And I'll also ask in limine, your Honor, that
he not be allowed to indicate these boys were
tortured. I'd like for him to be instructed not to
do either one of those two things. And I'd like the
Court to rule on that request.

THE COURT: Well, again, I don't know that his
opinion would necessarily require him to refer to
the medical examiner's notes, but if he uses one of
the facts and bases of his opinion, and I think he's
been asked three or four times, think they were
multiple injuries, he's gonna be permitted to do
that. I mean, you can attack and challenge his
testimony based upon the facts in the case. Goes to
the weight of his evi -- weight of the evidence, not
his credibility. As far as the second point I think
the same thing is true. Anything else? Not his
admissability, I said credibility. That goes to his
credibility.

FORD: Your Honor, we submit that his opinion --
there is no basis in fact. And that his opinion as
to the motive of these killings is not based in
facts, is not based on any scientific principles,
it's not based on anything that allows an expert
witness to give his opinion under chapter 7 of the
rules of evidence, that this is not an expert
opinion. That he's not qualified as an expert, and
that there is insufficient link to Jason Baldwin.

THE COURT: Well, --

FORD: And we -- Your Honor, that -- we submit that
the language of the order in limine has failed to
been met, to have established a link between Jason
Baldwin and the occult. He knows of no evidence to
establish this gentleman as a member of the occult
and a practicing participant in the occult. He knows
of no evidence. And in the absence of that, your
Honor, his opinion is so prejudicial to this young
man. And in the absence of any -- there's no link.
And that's what the Court order requires --

THE COURT: Okay.

FORD: -- the State to establish. And we would argue,
your Honor, they should not be allowed to introduce
this evidence as to Jason Baldwin. If the Court will
allow it to Mr. Echols that the Court instruct the
jury that the evidence of this witness is to be
considered only in determining guilt or innocence of
Mr. Echols, and not Mr. Baldwin.

THE COURT: You wanna be heard on that?

PRICE: Well --

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the only thing I was gonna add
is, first of all, the testimony of Michael Carson,
as indicated earlier, establishes that link. And, we
expect there'd be other (inferences?)

DAVIDSON: Your Honor --

THE COURT: You wanna add something?

PRICE: Judge, in addition -- as another basis for
our objection is it's our position that there's been
no empirical data that's been brought forward at
this hearing of any basis to form Dr. Griffis'
opinion about this. If -- I'd remind your Honor of
the ruling that the defense made in the Misskelley
trial about Dr. Ofshe testifying, and the Court
ruled that there was not empirical data for the
basis of some of Dr. Ofshe's opinions about whether
or not Mr. Misskelley's confession was coerced or
not.

THE COURT: Well there was quite a bit of difference
in my ruling on Ofshe's testimony. You were trying
to create a scientific and technical field under
which his theories could fall.

PRICE: The State is trying --

THE COURT: Further, the testimony of Mr. Ofshe went
to the ultimate issue of the jury -- for the jury's
determination, and I recognize Rule 704 or 705
allows the jury -- an expert to testi -- testifies
to the ultimate issue in some circumstances. Here,
Ofshe --

MR. PRICE: There's no scientific basis.

THE COURT: Well, I'll point out two things to you.
First of all, Ofshe testified to everything I said
he couldn't testify to anyway. And two, I narrowed
my ruling in that case to only a certain portion of
his opinion. I allowed him to give testimony with
regard to his expertise, his education, his
knowledge in the field. But I limited him only on
expressing an opinion that would be in a directive
nature to the jury that, "This is my expert opinion
and you must find such and such." That's totally
different from the issue --

PRICE: But it's our position that there's no --

THE COURT: -- before the Court now.

PRICE: -- scientific basis for the --

THE COURT: Well, --

PRICE: -- for this witness to testify that this is
an occult related killing.

THE COURT: Well.

FORD: We join in that argument, your Honor.

PRICE: We've asked him on numerous occasions, name
some cases, name some -- and he can't even come up
with the names of the cases. He mentions one or two
or possibly three. Surely three cases cannot be a
basis of a -- or you can have a scientific opinion
or body of work which is the basis of his opinion.

THE COURT: Okay, it's my ruling that this witness
will be able to testify as an expert, as a person
with specialized knowledge in the field of occultism
that would assist the jury to understand the
evidence and to determine the factual issue
involving the motivation. And that he is qualified
as an expert based upon his knowledge, his
experience and his training in the area of occultism
or satansim. And I don't know of any particular
scientific field other than perhaps what he's
indicated that will allow such testimony. But I'm
going to allow him in that regard to testify in that
regard. I think I've ruled on everything now -- the
rest of your cross didn't change my mind. Is there
anything you want a specific ruling on that I
haven't already ruled on?

DAVIDSON: We just want the record to reflect that we
join in Mr Ford's --

THE COURT Well I think it did.

DAVIDSON: -- (inaudible)

THE COURT: Anything else? Alright, I'm ready to call
the jury back in.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, because of the nature of his
testimony, we're going to – we need to put on some
other evidence before he testifies, so we'd ask that
he step down and that Lisa Sakevicius retake the
stand.

THE COURT: Alright. You need to go back to the room
-- or back there. Pardon?

FORD: There's gonna be some issues regarding the
admissibility of the evidence based the search
warrant, that they're gonna introduce evidence of
what may have been located in certain people's
homes.

FOGLEMAN: We've already had a hearing on the search
warrant.

FORD: No, because you told us you didn't know what
evidence you were gonna offer.

FOGLEMAN: We had a long --

THE COURT: I did some suppression hearings on the
(audio stops)

(audio starts again)

THE COURT: -- I don't know either.

FORD: Well, until we do we don't know whether they
fall within the confines of the description of the
warrant.

THE COURT: You can object.

FORD: We preserve that.

FOGLEMAN: 15, 15 black t-shirts.

FORD: That's all? 15 black t-shirts.

PRICE: At which home?

FOGLEMAN: Jason's.

PRICE: Book --

(?): That gotta be Damien's.

PRICE: Judge, can we see the book? Is this the Bible
or what book is this?

FOGLEMAN: Same book you've seen --

PRICE: Can I see it now that --

THE COURT: That yellow book that was in the other
trial, is --

FOGLEMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: -- that what it was?

FORD: Judge we'd object to the introduction of that
book because that book is hearsay. It is right
hearsay, that book is.

THE COURT: Are you talking about the words that are
printed in it and what you might read from it?
That's hearsay I agree with you. But the book itself
would be admitted.

FORD: Well then, will the jury be instructed not to
open it and read it?

(?): They can't open it?

FORD: Not to open it and read it? If they receive it
into evidence, they don't -- they may read it.
That's evidence and that's hearsay

DAVIDSON: We'd like to present some books too,
namely -- here's a good book, where is it? --

PRICE: Which one? "Pursuit of Satan."

DAVIDSON: "Pursuit of Satan."

THE COURT: Okay, whose home was that found in?

PRICE: My home, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I might let it go in in that
case.

FOGLEMAN: Are we gonna proceed the trial?

THE COURT: Yes. Yes sir, if you'll lay it back
there.

COURT REPORTER: (inaudible) talk one at a time
(inaudible).

THE COURT: Yeah, you all need to be talking one at a
time instad of all at once.

(Mumbling)

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor -- Your Honor, we got a copy
from the World Almanac. Also, information from the
May the 5th paper about the moon. And we submit the
Court ought to take judicial notice of the fact that
there was a full moon on May the 5th.

FORD: Your Honor, in the absence of that -- in the
absence of any evidence regarding cloud cover we
feel like that's meaningless.

THE COURT: Does cloud cover have anything to do with
whether or not you can do this sort of stuff?

FORD: (inaudible) you don't see a full moon --

THE COURT: I don't know. Are you objecting to the
Almanac and the paper that said there was a full
moon on that particular day in time?

DAVIS: Judge, judge, what -- the Almanac is on
Greenwich time.

DAVIDSON: Is on what?

DAVIS: You gotta use a calculation to figure out
based on World Almanac, what is was for Memphis. The
Commercial Appeal section on that particular date
reflects, sunrise, sunset, and the moon phase --

THE COURT: You're asking me to take judicial notice
of anything that was in the Commercial?

(Laughter)

DAVIS: Judge, I believe they get that -- I believe
they get that from sort of like AP feed. I don't
think that's based on anything their reporters come
up with.

DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I believe -- didn't I have
this information from the --

DAVIS: I don't think the moon phases is in that,
unless you can show it to me.

FOGLEMAN: We do want the sunset on there too.

THE COURT: There is a government agency that can
provide that sort of testimony if it's necessary.

DAVIDSON: I think I've got it, your Honor. Didn't I
show that to you --

FOGLEMAN: Didn't say anything about the moon that I
could find. You wouldn't point to where it was.

DAVIS: If it does --

FOGLEMAN: -- (unintelligible) I don't know.

THE COURT: You all hurry up.

DAVIS: Judge, I think what we're asking is that the
Court just take judicial notice of the time of
sunset, and that it was -- of a moon phase on that
particular date, rather than introduce something
like this.

THE COURT: Gentlemen, that's something that's easy
to prove if you wanna -- I mean, if you wanna --

FORD: Your Honor, I think they can introduce it as
an exception to the hearsay rule, but not --
juducial notice is a different concept than
admitting it as an exception to the hearsay rule.

FOGLEMAN: But --

THE COURT: Well, that is one of the exceptions.
Judicial notice --

FORD: It's a periodical. Under the newspaper
exception they can ask a witness to -- was this in
the Commercial Appeal on such and such date. But
that -- giving it judicial notice is --

THE COURT: Well, that is Rule 1000, I think. Let's
see what it says.

FOGLEMAN: Will you all object to the introduction of
this excerpt from World Almanac and the topic in the
May 5th paper?

FORD: (unintelligible)

DAVIDSON: If I can find it, I think I got it from
the National Weather Service.

THE COURT: That's where you get that stuff.

(Mumbling) - (audio stops)

(audio starts again)

THE COURT: -- Almanac, allow it to go in or I'll
rule that it's not admissible on your objection and
that they can get proof from the weather office in
Little Rock and bring it in tomorrow.

DAVIS: Judge, they have --

THE COURT: They should come --

DAVIDSON: I got the --

FOGLEMAN: (inaudible)

DAVIDSON: climatological data --

FORD: I can't stipulate to it.

DAVIDSON -- and the sunrise and the sunset, Memphis,
Tennessee, from the National Weather Service.

THE COURT: I think they also keep the moon stages
too, because that's got something to do with
agricultural process and you may have to get through
the ASCS.

(?): You all object to this all come in?

DAVIDSON: No. In fact, we will offer this.

PRICE: (Unintelligible)

DAVIDSON: A joint exhibit, your Honor.

DAVIS: It doesn't have anything about the moon.

FOGLEMAN: Do we need to introduce both of them? Is
there some reason to introduce both of these things?

(?): Yeah, we want them both.

THE COURT: We're talking about whether the moon was
shining full that night. Something that is a matter
that can be established as a fact.

(Mumbling)

THE COURT: Alright, where do we stand? We gonna
agree that the moon was up or not?

FORD: I don't know.

THE COURT: Well, just say no and then --

FORD: No.

THE COURT: -- alright, objection sustained. Alright,
call the jury back in. You all ready?

FOGLEMAN: Yes sir, we're ready.

(Mumbling)

(?): 121 and 122.

(THE FOLLOWING CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH OUT
OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY)

THE COURT: I'm going to attempt to caution the jury
to consider the occult testimony only as going to
motive like I indicated.

WADLEY: Let's don't do it now, Judge.

THE COURT: Well, I'm getting -- I was going to tell
them -- well, when the man gets ready to testify,
that's when I'll do it. I'll wait until then. All
right.

(RETURN TO OPEN COURT)

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, at this time we would offer
State's Exhibit 121 and 122 and it can be considered
as a joint exhibit with the defendants. It has got
sunrise and sunset for various dates and various
months and the local climatological data.

DAVIDSON: That's correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. They may be received.

(STATE'S EXHIBITS 121 AND 122 ARE RECEIVED IN
EVIDENCE)

March 8, 1994

THE COURT: Alright, ladies and Gentlemen, the Court
is going to give you a similar cautionary
instruction. You are about to receive evidence or
testimony with regard to occultism, cultism, satanic
affairs and you are instructed and told that that
testimony is to be considered only and solely for
the limited purpose of establishing motive, intent,
scheme or design. Alright, you may proceed.

FOGLEMAN: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY FOGLEMAN:
Q: Would you state you name and occupation for the
jury?

A: Dale W. Griffis, Tiffin, Ohio. I'm a consultant.

Q: Alright. And what type of consultant are you?

A: I consult to criminal justice educators, mental
health people, in the area of nontraditional groups.

Q: Are you married?

A: Yes. Married 35 years, have 3 children.

Q: Are they adult children?

A: Yes they are. One is a photographer with paper,
another one operates a wholesale flower business,
and my son is in the construction engineer.

Q: Now, prior to becoming a consultant, what was
your work background?

A: I was 26 years with the Tiffin, Ohio Police
Department at which time I was retired out as a
captain and second in command of the Police
Department.

Q: And during the course of that 26 years with the
Tiffin, Ohio Police Department, were there periods
-- short periods of time where you went and worked
with other law enforcement agencies?

A: Yes there was.

Q: Alright.

A: I worked L.A. Police Department for 2 weeks, San
Francisco 2 weeks, and since that time I worked with
other agencies for a limited time.

Q: And in the course of those 2 weeks stints with
the Los Angeles Police Department and San Francisco
Police Department, what area did you work in?

A: In the area cults and nontraditional groups,
occult groups.

Q: And what is your educational background?

A: I graduated from high school, have associate
degree in police science, a bachelor's degree in
psychology, master's degree in criminal justice and
a dissertation in criminal justice.

Q: And the master's degree in criminal justice and
where you did your dissertation, where were those
from?

A: Columbia Pacific University in San Rafael,
California.

Q: Alright. And what type of school is that?

A: It is a educational facility, or basically a
school without walls.

Q: A what?

A: School without walls.

Q: Alright, what is a school without walls?

A: You can take your training and education
wherever.

Q: Okay. Was much of the work by correspondence?

A: And phone, fax.

Q: Now, when did you start the course work at
Columbia Pacific University, approximately?

A: 'Bout 1980.

Q: Okay. And, was that -- did that course work have
some relationship to nontraditional group activity.

A: My master's work was working in the intelligence
work with small agencies and my doctoral
dissertation was on mind control cults and the
effects on the objectives of law enforcement.

Q: Alright now, when did you develop this
in-Christian, the nontraditional -- first of all,
define for the jury what nontraditional groups are.

A: They're -- I specifically teach people to look at
groups, group behaviour, group activities from a
malevolent side. Everybody has got the right to
believe whatever they wish. And, I teach them to
look at these groups for what they are, whether it
be a c-u-l-t or an occult group or a gang member or
a type of cult that causes malevolent -- has
malevolent tendencies to it.

Q: Alright. And what are malevolent tendencies?

A: Bad. Break the law.

Q: Okay. And, when did you develop this interest in
studying nontraditional group activities?

A: About 1967, 68, when we started seeing some of
these groups that were cause orientated on the
campuses raising some havoc.

Q: And after developing this interest did you
contact schools with walls to try to pursue that
study?

A: I was going through those type of schools until
1976, uh --

Q: What do your mean you’re --

A: I was going through Terra Technical College in
Fremont, Ohio, and then I graduated with a degree in
psychology from Heidelburg College.

Q: Alright. And after that, did you also seek to
pursue a course of study at a school with walls?

A: Yeah, I ran into a case in 1976 I -- threw me for
a loop. And done -- I went out, tried to get the
lateral transfers went out did some studies, realize
that wasn't work. Then yes sir, I did go to schools
with walls to get additional help.

Q: Alright, and were -- did those schools with
walls, did they offer the type of studies in this
nontraditional group activity?

A: No sir.

Q: Now, if you could, if you could explain a little
bit about your background and law enforcement
experience that relates to the nontraditional group
area or cult area.

A: Well, I started, like I said, in the late 60's
working cause-orientated groups. These are groups
that have a purpose or a design or have some
interest they are out there to further them.

Q: Can you give us an example?

A: Yes. The Students United for Freedom and Peace,
those things that we commonly saw on the campuses.

Q: This was back in the 60’s?

A: Yes sir, it was.

Q: Okay. And what other experience did you have with
the nontraditional groups, or occult?

A: Well, I come from a small town in Ohio, and we
started hearing cases involving some cults,
c-u-l-t-s. And I started checking on that. I
thoroughly was unbelieved why people would leave
home to give up their money and so forth. It became
an interest to me and I looked into it, delved into
it, studied it, anything that I could get a hold of.

Q: And as a result of those interests that you
developed, have you also, for instance when you were
in Los Angeles and San Francisco did you further
that interest?

A: Yes that’s all I worked wise. I was on the
streets working, I tried to be proselytized by these
groups, see how they worked, see what their sales
pitch was. I went to the American Church of Satan, I
went to --

Q: When you say you went to –- you saying you were
you a member?

A: No, no, I went to where they held their meetings
and looked at how their rooms were set up. I went to
their book stores. At that time I didn't know what a
book of shadows was. Learned right from the street
on up what the different groups was. Went to --
worked with police officers, a female police officer
I respect her very much and she helped me a lot.

Q: And did you also interview people involved in
this activity?

A: Over the years, yes sir I did. Also when I was
doing my dissertation. At the school I attended they
had what we call an ISP or independent study
project. And, I had to -- part of my dissertation
was the results of that review. I talked to close to
500 of them.

Q: How many?

A: About 500.

Q: Okay. 500?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Okay. Now, at the present time, approximately how
many calls per week do you receive in regard to
nontraditional groups?

A: About 65, averagely.

Q: And of those 65 calls, approximately -- what
percentage is related to Satanism?

A: About 80 percent.

Q: Have you previously qualified as expert in both
state and federal court?

A: Yes sir, I have.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would submit Mr. Griffis at
this time as an expert.

VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY FORD:
Q: Mr. Griffis, Columbia Pacific University, is that
where you went to school?

A: Yes sir, that's what I testified to.

Q: And that's basically a mail-order college, isn't
it? Where you can send in information and get a
degree. Isn't that what it is?

A: No sir. I don't understand that -- that's not how
that place works.

Q: It's not how -- in other words, so this little
flier that I have from Columbia Pacific University
about business reply, mail send it in or how to get
a, how to get a degree, that's not where you went?
Is that where you went to -- is that where you went
to college?

A: Yes it was but I don't think that was the
question, yes sir.

Q: Okay. How many -- tell the jury what classes you
attended -- let's back up just a second. What year
did you graduate from high school?

A: 1955.

Q: Okay. And when did you go to college?

A: First time I went to college was 1956.

Q: 1956. And where did you go to college in 1956?

A: At Delbert College associated with Western
Missouri.

Q: Did you ever get a degree there?

A: No sir.

Q: Okay. Did you ever -- I think you indicated you
said you got a technical degree from a community
college?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Okay, and when did you get that degree?

A: It was 1974, 1975.

Q: And what was that degree in?

A: Associate degree in police science.

Q: An associate degree?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Okay. And did you have to go to classes?

A: Oh yes.

Q: And take tests?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And get a report card or grades?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And have a transcript?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Okay. Now, did you later go to a 4 year college?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And when did you go to a 4 year college?

A: I started -- actually I was going to both of them
at the same time, counselor.

Q: Okay. Were you working at all?

A: Yeah, I certainly was.

Q: Okay, so you were -- where were you working?

A: I was -- I was working at the Tiffin Police
Department, I believe at the rank of lieutenant at
that time.

Q: Okay. So you were a full-time police officer and
enrolled as a full time college student in two
different colleges?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And when did you -- you got two degrees. One in a
technical college and one a 4 year degree, is that
correct?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And that was a B.A.?

A: Magna Cum Laude, yes sir.

Q: Okay. And what year was that?

A: 76.

Q: Okay. Now, when you went and got that B.A. degree
did you have to go to classes?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And have professors?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And take tests?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And get grades?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And have a transcript?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Now, when you went out to this mail-order
college, Columbia Pacific University, what classes
did you take?

A: No classes.

Q: What -- did you take tests?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. What tests did you take?

A: Predominantly written.

Q: Okay.

A: Objective questions.

Q: Okay. And, while you were enrolled at this
college in California, where did you live?

A: In Tiffin.

Q: In Tiffin, Ohio?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Okay. And you took no classes? Had no professors?

A: Oh yes, I didn't say that. You didn't ask that
question.

Q: Okay. But no classes?

A: No classes.

Q: No classes, okay. And, when did you start in
school there?

A: Around 1980, sir.

Q: 1980. And you go a Master's Degree -- that's what
you told us --

A: Yes sir.

Q: -- you got a Master's Degree.

A: Yes sir.

Q: And how long did it take you without taking
classes to get that Master's Degree.

A: 2 years.

Q: Okay.

A: It was a combined master/doctoral program, the
total program lasted 3 years.

Q: 3 years?

A: Yes sir.

Q: So in 3 years you got a Master's and a Ph.D?

A: Yes sir.

Q And didn't go to class?

A: I was at the campus a couple of times, but I did
not attend classes, sir.

Q: They don't have classes at this campus, do they?

A: No sir.

Q: I think you told Mr. Fogleman that other schools
don't offer classes like this. Are you telling us
Harvard, and Stanford, Ohio State, Michigan State,
they don't offer classes that deal with the
psychology of nontraditional groups? Is that what
you're telling this jury that you can't go to those
schools and study this kind of stuff?

A: Counselor, this was 1980, at that period of time
--

Q: 1980?

A: -- the answer to that is no -- cause I went to --

Q: In 1980?

A: I went and asked for them, yes sir.

Q: In 1980 you couldn't go to Stanford or Michigan
State and take a class on the psychology of
nontraditional groups? Is that what you're telling
us?

A: Not in work and not continue, no sir.

Q: Not if you were gonna continue to be a full-time
cop?

A: Police officer.

Q: Well. Right? The only way you could -- you're not
saying that these courses weren't offered there,
you're just saying --

A: To my --

Q: -- offered without -- you had to go to class to
get a degree there, wouldn't you?

A: I went to Bowling Green, Toledo University,
Marion campus Ohio State, the campus at Bowling
Green up by the islands, Ohio State and Ohio
University, I could not even get a weekend program.

Q: Could you get a full-time program?

A: Not in the area I wanted, no sir.

Q: So you could not -- you're telling us you could
not go to school, and go to class, and get a degree
in this type of subject. You had to go to this kind
of college?

A: Not at this time. You cannot (unintelligible).

Q: Okay. Now, this lateral transfer, you were in
L.A. and San Francisco for 2 weeks? Is that right?

A: Each -- yes sir.

Q: 2 weeks?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Okay. Now these 65 to 75 calls that you say, and
80 percent relate to satanism, those are just
suspicions, aren't they? They're not things you
actually follow up on, are they?

A: Yes I do.

Q: You follow up on every one of these 65 calls a
week?

A: I give information out and/or give them people in
their area to follow up with.

Q: Okay. Is this your full-time job? Is this all you
do for a living?

A: Do consulting work?

Q: With police departments.

A: Not with just police departments, sir. I
testified earlier -- with mental health educators,
and besides doing a consulting (?), I do give
lectures, sir.

Q: But it's all in this area, isn't it?

A: Yes sir.

Q: You derive all your living from going around
spreading satanic panic, don't you?

A: Absolutely not, sir.

Q: Now, where have you -- how many criminal trials
have you testified in?

A: Criminal trials?

Q: How many criminal trials have you testified in?

A: A couple hundred.

Q: You've testified in a couple hundred criminal
trials. How many of those couple of hundred criminal
trials have you testified in as an expert in satanic
activities?

A: One.

Q: One. And where was that?

A: Michigan.

Q: And what was the name of the person who was on
trial?

A: I told you earlier I don't remember his name.

Q: You don't remember his name.

A: His first name is Jeff and he is in Ionia State
Prison.

Q: When was it?

A: About 1987.

Q: 1987. And you think because you testified in one
trial you're an expert?

A: I've testified in hundreds of trials, sir.

Q: But not relating to cult activities, you did all
that when you were a police officer, didn't you?
When you were on the beat, making arrests. But as an
expert in this field, you've only done it one time,
is that right? One time? Is that your answer?

A: No, I've testified three times as an expert.

Q: In criminal trials?

A: That wasn't a question, sir.

Q: Yes it was. In a criminal trial --

DAVIS: Your Honor, Mr. Ford asks the question and
then when he starts to get the response, he changes
his question. We would object and let the witness
have an opportunity to answer.

THE COURT: Let him answer the question.

Q: My question is doctor, how many --

DAVIS: Your Honor. Let me enter my objection. His
question has already been asked. The question was,
how many times have you testified as an expert in
the occult, and I think the witness should be
allowed to answer that question before Mr. Ford
interposes another one.

FORD: If I asked that question, your Honor, let him
answer it. I thought I asked him in criminal trials.
But -- that's alright. How many times have you --
you've been in business for how many years as a
consultant?

A: Since 1986.

Q: 86, okay. And you testified how many times as an
expert on this stuff?

A: Three times.

Q: And how many of those were criminal?

A: Once.

Q: And you think that qualifies you as an expert?

A: That's up to the Court.

Q: You think you're an expert?

A: I know what I'm talking about.

Q: Do you think you're an expert?

A: I never held -- I've don't hold myself out as a
-- I know a lot about the topic, yes sir.

Q: That's not my question. Do you think you're an
expert?

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the question has been asked
and answered.

FORD: No, he didn't. He didn't answer it. He said he
knew a lot about the subject. I want to know does he
think he's an expert.
Q: Do you?

A: Yes.

THE COURT: Anything else?

PRICE: No questions at this time.

THE COURT: All right, you may proceed.

FORD: We submit he's not an expert. We would object
to his opinions on that basis.

THE COURT: I have already ruled in that regard. You
may continue. Let's take a short recess first.

(RECESS)

(RETURN TO OPEN COURT)

FOGLEMAN: Thank you, your Honor.

CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY FOGLEMAN:
Q: At my request, have you reviewed autopsy reports
for Stevie Branch, Chris Byers and Michael Moore?

A: Yes.

Q: And have you reviewed autopsy photographs?

A: Yes I have.

Q: Have you also reviewed some crime scene
photographs?

A: Yes I have.

Q: Based on those items that you reviewed and if you
assume that the testimony showed that the defendant
Jason Baldwin sucked the blood from the penis of one
of the victims, that it occurred on -- that this
crime occurred on the May 5th or 6th of 1993, that
there was a full moon and that there was the absence
of evidence of blood at --

THE COURT: Just a minute, Mr. Fogleman. If I hear
any more whispering out in the audience somebody's
gonna get it. I can hear audible talk and I don't
wanna hear it. Alright, go ahead.

Q: And there was absence of evidence of blood at the
scene. Based on those factors and the information
that you reviewed, do you have an opinion as to
whether or not the murder of Michael Moore, Stevie
Branch and Chris Byers is occult inspired or the
occult is involved?

A: They're -- using those items, yes.

Q: Alright, and what is that opinion?

A: That they were using the trappings of occultism
during this event.

Q: And what do you mean "the trappings of
occultism"?

A: Well, you've got dates, time of the moon phase,
you have the removal of blood. And uh -- I think it
was --

Q: Start with -- on the date, what effect -- what
relation does the date have?

A: Occultists -- when we are discussing this in
general like any other religious groups have certain
holidays that they worship. Walpersnaucht is on
April 30th, Beltane is on May 1st and then it --

Q: Okay now, let's -- April the 30th is what now?

THE COURT: Wait a minute. The jury seems to have a
hard time hearing anything.

FOGLEMAN: Can you lean --

(mumbling)

THE COURT: Pardon?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Needs to be closer to him.

FOGLEMAN: The grey one.

THE WITNESS: This one here?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

THE COURT: Yeah.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.

FOGLEMAN: Alright.

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

Q: Alright, April the 30th --

A: Yes.

Q: -- is what now?

A: Walpersnaucht. It's based at the changing of the
seasons.

Q: Okay, and --

A: Beltane is May 1st, it's a fire festival.

Q: It's a what?

A: Fire festival.

Q: Fire festival?

A: Fire festival.

Q: Alright. In what group is that a holiday?

A: Generally, in occultism it's used by both pagan
and satanic beliefs.

Q: Alright. Now, while we're talking about it, can
you define what we mean when we say the occult,
occult?

A: Sure. Occult is like an esoteric secret science
religion. And there are different types to it.
There's paganism, which is white witchcraft, and
there's satanism which is black witchcraft. Some
shamanism has been put in there which is Indian
folklore occultism. They go back in the area of
paganism prior to Christianity.

Q: Now, does the manner in which the children were
tied, does that have any effect? Or any
significance?

A: I noticed they were in tied in what I would refer
to in a display fashion. In other words, their
ankles were tied to their wrists, exposing their
genitalia, and they would either put them on their
face or on their back.

Q: And, what -- do the types of injuries have
significance?

A: The -- predominantly there was the removal of sex
organs. And some books on occultism they will talk
about sex organs, removal of the testicles for the
semen, a group called Crytos.

Q: Crytos?

A: Yes, c-r-y-t-o-s. There are --

Q: Okay. Do occult cults -- is torture done by
occult cults?

A: Not in a -- as part of a -- I would like for them
to understand the difference between traditional
occult groups and occult cult groups.

Q: Okay.

A: I think that would be better if I can put that in
there. Traditional occultists follow rules set out
by various prescribed manuals for services and so
forth. An occult cult group usually follows that of
the leader, and -- it could be anything.

Q: Alright, in occult cults, are you saying they
kind of make their own rules?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Do the fact of the manner in which the types of
injuries in the sense of the variety of injuries
have significance in your opinion? As far as the
head injuries to one, plus injuries to the face in
regard to the --

A: No.

FORD: Your Honor, I object to leading questions. I
ask that he ask direct questions instead of
supplying the answers for this witness.

THE COURT: Avoid leading.

FORD: Is that a -- you sustain my objection?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q: What, if any, significance is -- place to the
presence of water?

A: Usually water is there to wash up with up. In
some cases of traditional occult groups it is there
to do baptism, just as well in Christianity.

Q: What significance, if any, is there to the
sucking of blood?

A: Blood is the life force. And usually they will
take -- they prefer to have a child that is young,
very young, and the younger, the more innocent, the
better the life force.

Q: What significance, if any, is to the absence of
evidence of blood at the scene?

A: I'm not sure how to answer that -- they could
either do -- in occultism they will take it, and
store it, they will use it to bathe in, they will
use it to drink.

Q: What was the -- what you said a minute ago about
the drinking of the blood? What was that supposed to
do?

A: Give power, life force, transference of life
force.

Q: Now, is there -- in occultism is there any
significance to right hand, left hand, or right
side, left side?

A: In satanism, yes.

Q: Alright, and what significance is that, in any?

A: Right hand -- they usually take the midline of
the body right down the straight and they will refer
to the right hand path as that for Christianity.
Left hand path would be for satanism.

Q: Now, in actual practice are there attempts to
classify the persons who are involved in occultism
into different categories to the extent of which
they are practicing occult behaviour?

A: In cases where there is suspected criminal
activity we would look at the various levels or for
classification. For example, we could have a
follower, a leader, a traditional member, we could
have a victim.

Q: What is considered a traditional -- what is
considered a traditional member?

A: Traditional member would be somebody who belongs
to a satanic church which is recognized in the state
where they have filed corporation papers or are
following traditional satanic beliefs --

Q: Alright. Now --

A: -- such as the American Church of Satan.

Q: Who founded that church?

A: Anton Sandor LaVey.

Q: LaVey?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Alright.

A: Walpersnaucht 1966.

Q: Alright. It was established on Walpersnaucht?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Alright. And, what type -- are you familiar with
any of the books that he's written?

A: Yes sir.

Q: What are some of those?

A: He wrote The Satanic Bible, Satanic Ritual Book,
and The Complete Witch.

Q: And are those white witchcraft or black
witchcraft?

A: Those are black witchcraft.

Q: Now, do you have something called a self-styled
satanist?

A: Yes, those are -- that boils down, counselor,
with the different types of groups.

Q: Okay.

A: Which would start out with an experimenter,
usually one who practices alone in an unorganized
manner, a self-styled occultist and we are talking
here only in the field of satanism. And this person
has some kind of problems in life and they use the
trappings of occultism to get along. Then we have an
occult cult group, and this has a little charismatic
leader and some followers. Sometimes they got a name
for their group, sometimes they don't have a name
for their group. But they use -- all three of those
use the trappings of occultism. And then you have a
traditional church that uses the traditional books
on occultism.

Q: Now, do you -- in looking at young people
involved in the occult, do you see any particular
type of dress or jewelry or body markings, anything
like that?

A: The ones using the trappings?

Q: Yes.

A: Yes.

Q: Alright. And what type of things do you see?

A: I have personally observed people wearing black
fingernails, having their hair painted black,
wearing black t-shirts, black dungarees, or that
type of thing. Sometimes they will tattoo
themselves. Either -- it starts out sometimes just
with ink. And because they don't know the -- you
know, everything liable put on the left as well as
the right. Then they will use some earrings which
have occult symbols on them, that you can buy
through mail-order houses.

Q: In regard to the tattoos, is there any particular
area of the hand where tattoos might be?

A: Two places. One would be on the middle finger of
the left hand, and often times will be –- sometimes
-- like I said, at what levels -- but in the web
here of the hand.

Q: Between the thumb and the index finger?

A: Yes sir, right there.

Q: Of the left hand --

A: Yes sir.

Q: -- generally, unless they get it mixed up?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Now, do practitioners of satanism keep records or
books of things, spells or things like that?

A: Most occultists do but it depends upon how
sophisticated what they do.

Q: I wanna show you State's Exhibit 110 and ask if
you – if you'll look at that and also -- have you
seen that before?

A: Yes sir, I have.

Q: If you'll look through that again.

(Pause)

A: Yes sir.

Q: Alright, and what does that appear to you to be?

A: What I would refer to as a partial book of
shadows.

Q: Book of shadows --

A: A partial.

Q: -- partial.

A: Partial.

Q: Alright. Now, the items drawn on the front, what
is that?

A: That is a pentagram, that happens to be a Wiccan,
or white witchcraft pentagram.

Q: Alright. Now if you would open the book to the
front page.

A: Yes sir.

Q: Alright. Now, explain what that is.

A: That's confusion to me.

Q: Alright.

A: And the reason why we've got a white witchcraft
pentagram, then we have upside down crosses which
comes from another type of occultism.

Q: What type of occultism do the upside down cross
come from?

A: That's black witchcraft.

Q: Black witchcraft?

A: Yeah, and that is at the stations.

Q: That's what?

A: That's at what we call the points, the five
points.

Q: Alright, what significance does that -- that it's
at the five points?

A: Usually in traditional occultism -- excuse me --
satanism they'll have various activities take place
or --

Q: Okay. Now --

A: -- figures --

Q: In white witchcraft or wiccan do you have upside
down crosses?

A: No sir.

Q: Now, I want to show you State's Exhibit 115.

A: Yes sir.

Q: Alright. And is that a photograph that appears to
be of that except there are a couple of other items
on the front.

A: Yes sir.

Q: Alright. And what significance, if any, is there
to the items that are on the front of the book of
shadows?

A: Well, on the front there's overlaying, this
pentagram there's an upside down cross. In black
witchcraft that is a 180 degrees to Christianity.
Then we have some kind of a flying skull here.

Q: I also wanna show you State's Exhibit 112 and ask
if that has any significance in occultism.

A: The body here on top of what looks to be an altar
is a head and it appears to be the same drawing of
Ephias Levi.

Q: Who?

A: Ephias Levi. L-e-v-i. Bontamet, or a satanic goat
head.

Q: Okay.

A: And below that is a person in a robe, and these
robes I have seen sold in occult shops on the East
Coast and West Coast.

Q: Is this Wicca?

A: No sir, this is black witchcraft.

Q: I wanna show you State's Exhibit 111. What
significance, if any, is there of 111?

A: It's just a -- something gory.

Q: Alright. And in people involved in occultism, is
there a particular type of artwork that you see
associated with those people?

A: The ones that I have observed have been involving
necromancy or love of death.

Q: Let me show you State's Exhibit 116. Now, on 116
-- when you look at 116 in relation to the other
items that I've showed you, does that have any
significance?

A: Uh --

Q: When you take it in relation to all the other
items that I've just shown you.

A: On -- like the altar that's here -- several times
I have had the opportunity to review pictures where
they will have an animal's head on an altar or in a
room usually have a candle on it. I've worked cases
where they've dug up human heads.

Q: Are different names, or you ever been involved in
cases where different names were used?

A: Yes. I mean -- you're asking have I seen -- books
of shadows where they will have different names in
them, yes. And these names are used inside the cult
or their little group.

Q: Now, those items that I've shown you, are those
related to Wicca or white witchcraft or satanism?

A: This is black witchcraft. I have not seen Wicca
people use that. This one -- this kind of confuses
me because I have seen people in Wicca, well-meaning
have potions and elixirs.

Q: Have you seen Wicca use upside down crosses?

A: No sir.

Q: I failed to show you -- I wanna show you State's
Exhibit 83.

A: Excuse me. Yes.

Q: At my request did you look over that book?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Does that book have -- is it Wicca, Satanism, or
both?

A: Both.

Q: And, did you notice anything in particular about
the book?

A: Yeah I -- a couple of things. One, there is a
chapter in here called, "Rising Devil," and it is
underlined in red. Often times I get a look at books
and the spinals are not broke on the back. You'll
notice on this one it is not broken back, which to
me indicates somebody hasn't read that part, and
that part starts off with "Witch Hunt Mania."

Q: Alright, I couldn't hear you.

A: Witch Hunt Mania. That part doesn't look like
it's been opened up for someone to read it.

Q: Alright, now, there has been evidence that the
defendant Damien Echols said something to the effect
"The younger the victim, the more innocent. The more
innocent, the more power." Are you familiar with
words of an author containing that statement?

A: Yes. Alistair Crowley.

Q: Who?

A: Alistair Crowley used that.

Q: Who is Alistair Crowley?

A: He was a gentleman from England, came to the
United States, he started a group called OTO, and
came to the United States, he started the Solar
Lodge of OTO out in California.

Q: I can't hear you.

A: He started the Solar Lodge in California.

Q: Solar Lodge?

A: Solar, yeah, he called it Soto.

Q: Okay. And what type of beliefs was he practicing?

A; Black witchcraft, satanism.

Q: Satanism?

A: Yes, sir.

(Pause)

Q: Your Honor, could I have just one minute. (Pause)
Do you know of Alistair Crowley's position on human
sacrifice?

THE COURT: I'm going to allow him to answer if he
knows about it. Yes or no.

A: He --

Q: Answer yes or no.

A: No.

Q: You're not familiar?

A: No.

FOGLEMAN: Okay. I don't have any further questions,
your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY PRICE:
Q: Judge, if I can approach the witness for just one
moment. (Pause) Dr. Griffis, you have testified that
in your opinion that this murder have trappings of
occultism. Now, are you aware -- are you saying that
this picture right here, State's Exhibit 111, are
you saying this is one of the bases of your opinion
that the murders were trappings of occultism?

A: No.

Q: Okay. And actually this -- this picture being
something that the Crittenden Police Department,
Sheriff's Office has had in their possession at
least a year prior to these murders taking place,
this would actually have no value in connection with
your opinion, would it not?

A: Not that picture, no.

Q: Not this picture?

A. No sir.

Q: Alright, how about this other picture right here
that you described, the one with the goat's head and
the altar, picture 112, which also has been in
either the juvenile -- Crittenden County Juvenile
Office or the Sheriff's Department for the past
year. This picture is not a basis of part of your
opinion that these murders had trappings of
occultism, is it?

A: That is occult in nature, yes sir.

Q: This is occult in nature? But --

A: Yes sir.

Q: -- but this picture has not been in my client's
house for the past -- for a year prior -- actually
almost 2 years ago.

A: Okay.

Q: So if that's the evidence, then this picture has
nothing to do with the murders, is that correct?

A: No.

Q: Okay. No?

A: Would you please --

Q: Are you saying that this picture does have
something to do with the murders?

A: It was shown to me last evening.

DAVIS: Your Honor, I may enter an objection. The
question is improper because Mr. Price, number one,
presumes facts that aren't in evidence in his
question itself. Number two, the Court's admonition
to the jury that this testimony goes strictly to
motive in regard to his testimony -- it may be
evidence connecting motive where Mr. Price's
question is directed directly toward whether it
connects with the murder. There is a difference.

PRICE: His opinion was that this murder had
trappings of occultism.

THE COURT: Alright, I think the proper question to
ask the witness is, is that picture one of the
things that he considered in formulating his opinion
as to whether or not trappings of occultism
occurred.

Q: Alright, Doctor, is this picture one of the
things you considered in determining whether
occultism occurred as part of the motive in the
murders?

A: Yes.

Q: This is?

A: Yes.

Q: And you realize that this -- are you aware that
this picture has not been in my client's home the
past year prior to the murders?

A: I had not been.

Q: If you're told that fact, does that change your
opinion that this is a factor that you consider?

A: I would have to -- I would have to know whether
his activities changed. I don't know that --

Q: Alrght, but --

A: -- I would be making a guess, sir.

Q: But as far as the -- the existence of a picture
in his house. That picture was not in his house a
year -- for 12 months prior to the murders.

A: Yes sir.

Q: Would this picture in and of itself have any
basis for your opinion that the motive of this
killing was cult related?

A: In and of itself --

Q: In and of itself

A: Would it have -- yeah because it is occult --
depicts an occult satanic scene, yes.

Q: But if this picture has not been in his house for
12 months prior to the murders?

A: I -- I don't know how to answer that, I'll be
very honest with you, sir. I would have to know what
he had done for that 12 months.

Q: Alright, but my question – and I'll get to what
he's doing for the 12 months -- but my question
relates to this picture.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor --

Q: This picture has been introduced at this trial
against my client. This picture has been out of my
client's house 12 months prior to the murders.

A: Okay --

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor -- excuse me -- your Honor, I
object. That question has been asked and answered
two or three different times.

PRICE: I'm asking him to explain his opinion about
this.

THE COURT: Well, I think he has.

THE WITNESS: May I take this coat off?

THE COURT: Yes sir. He wants to take his coat off.

THE WITNESS: Would you mind, counselor, if I take --

PRICE: Oh no -- go ahead.

THE WITNESS: I come down to Arkansas to get some
heat.

(Pause)

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

Q: Alright. In looking at this book here, I think
you called it the book of shadows --

A: Yes sir.

Q: -- Exhibit number 110 -- the first writings in
this book talk about, "The rites are performed
within a nine foot circle."

A: Yes sir.

Q: Alright. Isn't it true that there is no evidence
at the crime scene of a nine foot circle?

A: That's correct, sir.

Q: In addition to this paragraph it also says that,
"Incense was used in all witchcraft ceremonies." And
isn't it true that there is no evidence of any
incense at the crime scene?

A: From what I've been told, yes sir.

Q: Alright, so this page in this book has nothing to
do with -- does this page have anything to do with
your opinion that the motive for the murders had
trappings of occultism?

A: That page?

Q: Yes sir.

A: No sir.

Q: This page. Alright, the next thing it talks about
"improving the memory. " Do that spell have anything
to do with the crime scene? Another one is "a love
charm." Do that have anything to do with the
murders?

A: Not to the best of my knowledge.

Q: Okay. "To improve the chances of success." Do
that potion have anything to do with the crime scene
of the murder?

A: I -- that one I don't know.

Q: Okay. Here's one, "a cure for worms." Was there
any evidence of any worms at the crime scene?

A: I have not seen the crime scene report, sir --

Q: Alright.

A: -- as to that topic.

Q: Okay. Alright, "a cure for cramps." Is there any
evidence about cramps being an element of anything
at the crime scene?

A: No sir.

Q: Earlier you testified about this particular book
here and mentioned that part of the book -- part of
the pages were opened and there was some lines
underlined. You have no knowledge of who it was that
underlined --

A: No sir, I do not.

Q: Alright. And I think you had mentioned one of the
chapters in the book -- ofcourse this book has
several different chapters. Chapter one about
"Horned Gods and Mother Goddesses." Chapter two
"Evolution of Witchcraft Magic." Chapter three
"Witch's Brews and Broomsticks," Chapter four "The
Pagan Witches," Chapter five "The Rise of the
Devil," Chapter six "The Witch Hunt Mania." Chapter
seven "Juvenile Witch Hunters." Chapter eight "The
Resurrection of the Crab." Is there anything in this
particular book that is your basis of the opinion
that the motive for these murders had trappings of
occultism?

A: I found it very interesting, counselor, that the
only thing that was underlined in that dealt with
devil worship and there -- if I remember correctly,
there was a couple sentences in there referenced to
blood and its life force.

Q: But as far as anything in this book dealing with
how to commit murders, how to kill somebody,
anything of that nature. That type of material is
not in this book, is not?

A: Is it a black manual? No sir.

Q: Now, going back to the factors that you had
stated that were some of the factors that you
considered in making your opinion. You first talked
about the fact that a particular date -- I think you
said May the 1st and then also April the 30th, are
important dates. Alright now – let me back up a bit,
in looking at your analysis of this particular
crime, did you take some satanist beliefs, some
Wiccan beliefs, some occult beliefs and kind of mix
it all together? Are you saying that this is a
satanist crime?

A: And from what I could see, the trappings were
used were that of devil worship.

Q: Of devil worship?

A: Yes sir.

Q: One of the factors that you testified to was
about the date -- and is it your testimony that
there are some -- I think you testified about April
30th and May 1st being dates of some type of
importance?

A: They have what is referred to as ethsabbaths.
Ethasbbaths are higher holidays and those two dates
are higher holidays.

Q: Okay. You said "They." Who is "They"?

A: Occultists.

Q: Occultists?

A: In general, the whole broad spectrum --

Q: The whole broad spectrum --

A: Yes sir.

Q: Is it your opinion that Damien Echols is an
occultist?

A: I looked at the information in total, counselor.
Not whom did what. His name was on that particular
book that you brought to my attention.

Q: That's correct.

A: And I found it interesting that Damien Echols
underlined only the things which had to do with
devil worship.

Q: Alright, now you testified earlier that you did
not know who underlined --

A: Yes, that is true.

Q: Okay. Are you saying that Damien Echols is a
member of the occult?

A: I'm saying that -- looking at the trappings of
this type of case, looking at what the book --
whomever did that, that they have an interest in the
trappings of satanic occultism.

Q: In your opinion is there a difference between a
crime that has trappings of occultism and a cult
related crime? Can you draw a distinction between
those two concepts?

A: I -- counselor, what -- I know what you said but
I don't know if that's exactly what you mean,
alright, and I would like to answer it this way.

Q: Alright.

A: A cult is something we have seen with David
Koresh.

Q: Okay.

A: Okay. An occult group is in satanism. When you
mix them together, when you have an occult cult
group, you are liable to have whatever the leader
may want.

Q: Alright. In your opinion is Damien Echols a
member of an occult group or a cult group?

A: If that's his name and he's been -- that was --
in his writings he has an interest in it, yes sir.

Q: He has an interest in it?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Alright. But is it possible to have an interest
but not be an actual member of a cult group?

A: An actual -- occult group?

Q: Yes sir.

A: Okay. I have priests and ministers will call me
and ask me what does this mean or that mean, that
doesn't mean they are occultists. But on the other
hand, they don't have books that somebody has
underlined with that either.

Q: Okay. So a main factor that you are considering
is the fact that my client possessed that book?

A: That and -- yes.

Q: Now, back on the dates, you said that May 1st and
April 30th were key dates. Now these murders took
place May 5th --

A: Wait. I think you had that backwards, counselor.
Did you mean to ask me on April 30th and May 1st?

Q: April 30th is Walpersnaucht --

A: Yeah.

Q: -- and May 1st is Beltane.

A: Beltane. I thought you got it transformed.

Q: That's right, my mistake if I did.

A: That's alright.

Q: Alright, but as far as --

A: I just wanna make sure I'm answering that --.

Q: Sure, that's fine. The murders, that's on the
testimony took place either May 5th or May 6th --

A: Yeah.

Q: -- so --

A: It's my understanding that there was a full moon.

Q: Alright, so is the fact of the full moon, is that
a key factor that you're considering?

A: That is one of the factors, yes sir.

Q: Alright. Now, if the murders would have taken
place -- if there was no moon -- in your opinion it
would not be a satanist killing?

A: It would lower the degrees of --

Q: Alright, if this --

A: -- probability.

Q: Alright. If the murders took place when it was a
half moon, would that lower halfway?

A: You're getting into semantics.

Q: Okay. You testified that the manner in which the
victims were tied -- I believe you testified it was
a display fashion. Is it also true that the manner
in which they were tied could be the basis of this
being a sex crime and not a crime with trappings of
occultism?

A: Could be. Yes.

Q: Yes. Alright, could you please state the name of
the case that you investigated in which the victims
were tied in this manner which turned out that case
also had trappings of occultism?

A: I've never had one like that.

Q: Alright.

A: I've only had them where they have been
displayed.

Q: You have also testified that the type of injury
was another factor that you considered in the
terming, about the trappings of occultism. Is the
type of injury also -- the fact that the genitalia
were removed -- that also could be a factor in this
being a sex crime, correct?

A: Could possibly.

Q: Okay, and could this also be a serial killing
type of crime?

A: Serial killers usually leave something or take
something from the scene.

Q: Okay. And you have also testified that the type
of -- the torture was another factor based on your
opinion. Can you state -- tell the ladies and
gentlemen of the jury which case it was that you had
investigated in which it was decided it had
trappings of occultism in which torture was a
factor?

A: This was in Warwick, Rhode Island, a female was
killed inside a pentagram. She was raped and hit
with a -- slashed with a knife a couple times and
after she was incapacitated, they burned her up, set
her on fire.

Q: Alright. Was -- in that case did they actually
find a pentagram?

A: Yes sir, they did.

Q: Alright. And you're aware -- in this case the
officers never found any kind of pentagram?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Or they didn't find any kind of nine foot circle?

A: Yes sir.

Q: You also testified -- just stated a minute ago,
in the Rhode Island case that they burned up the
victim. Is fire another factor that you look at to
determine if fire is present to see if the case has
trappings of occultism?

A: Uh-hum.

Q: Okay. And in looking at the evidence is our case
there was no evidence of fire.

A: That's one of the things.

Q: Another factor that you testified to earlier was
about the presence of water. Is it true that the
bodies could have been placed in the water in order
to drown them?

A: That's what the Medical Examiner said to me.

Q: So would you agree with me that that could be one
of the reasons they were placed in the water?

A: Yes.

Q: And also, is it true the bodies could also have
been placed in water to help avoid detection of the
bodies?

A: Is that possible?

Q: Yes sir.

A: Yes.

Q: So the fact that the bodies were found near the
presence of water, that in and of itself does not
make this a trappings of occult related killing?

A: Usually in occult cases they will be around a
water source.

Q: Alright, and what is a case in which you've
investigated and in which there was a determination
that it had trappings of an occult related killing
which was around a water source?

A: The one in Michigan where the boy is now in Ionia
prison.

Q: Okay. Just the Michigan case.

A: Yes sir.

Q: You also have testified that the sucking of blood
was a factor to consider, and that blood is a life
force, and you mention that they usually, they will
take the blood. Did you have a chance to -- I'm sure
you've discussed with the Medical Examiner the
amount and the loss of blood in all three of the
victims in this case?

A: Yes.

Q: Alright, and I'm sure you looked at the autopsy
photographs --

A: Yes sir.

Q: -- and read the autopsies?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And, of the three victims, only one of the
victims -- strike that. Do you have an opinion as to
where all the blood went in this case?

A: No I don't.

Q: Is the fact that the absence of blood at the
crime scene -- could that also mean the victims were
killed elsewhere and deposited at the crime scene?

A: Could be.

Q: You also testified about the significance of the
left side of the face and the right side of the
face, with the left side having reference to
satanism and the right side to Christians.
Is one of your factors because one of the victims
had more injuries on the left side of the face --
that's another factor that this case had trappings
of occultism?

A: Not -- it had some. A little.

Q: But not a significant --

A: -- I found it of interest. How would you --

Q: -- You would agree with me if a victim is
receiving facial injuries, there is a fifty percent
chance they'd receive injuries to the left side and
a fifty percent chance to the right side, correct?

A: Ah, yes, sir.

Q: You also made reference to Anton LaVey and the
Satanic Bible. Have you ever read the Satanic Bible?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: Was this in preparation of the research that you
were doing to help you better able to consult with
law enforcement officers?

A: Yes. I met Anton LaVey.

Q: You also mentioned about the factors of dress,
jewelry and tattoos. And you mentioned the wearing
of black could be a factor that you considered in
determining if this was cult related?

A: In -- you're going to have to go over that one
again. I want to make sure I understand what you're
saying.

Q: Is the fact -- the State has introduced fifteen
black tee shirts that they seized at the home of
Jason Baldwin.
Is it your testimony that if any person wears a
black tee shirt, is that a factor that you consider
in determining if this case has trappings of
occultism?

A: The prior dress code that the individual uses is
an indicator, yes.

Q: Are you aware that our local university's colors
are black and red?

A: (SHRUGS)

Q: And you're also aware that the Jonesboro High's
colors are black and gold?

A: I have gone on record also saying that just
because they wear a shirt like that doesn't make
them the next Manson.

Q: How many of the cases that you have investigated
in which the determination was made that they had
trappings of occultism in which the defendants wore
black t-shirts?

A: You're asking specific numbers, sir?

Q: Yes sir.

A: I cannot give you a specific number. I get asked
that question and people send me pictures privately,
parents do, whatever.

Q: Backing up to the picture over here, State's
Exhibit 111. In the research that you conducted, are
you aware that this picture came from a skating
magazine?

A: Source was not told to me.

Q: I'm sure you looked at the back of this
photograph, "Skater parks. Your 1991 tour guide."

A: No sir, I was not given the back. Nor was I given
the note inside.

(Pause)

PRICE: Alright, judge, we certainly did not
stipulate to the introduction of this particular
note.

FOGLEMAN: I didn't know it was there either.

PRICE: I know, ah --

THE WITNESS: I think --

PRICE: (Inaudible)

(Pause)

Q: Earlier you testified about a quote from, I
believe, Alistair Crawley or Crowley --

A: C-r-o-w-l-e-y. Yes sir.

Q: Okay. Dealing with younger victims?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Okay. Are you aware that the West Memphis Police
Department asked my client how he thought the
murders might have occurred?

A: No sir, I'm not aware.

Q: Are you aware that the West Memphis Police
Department asked approximately 200 other individuals
how they thought the murders might have occurred?

A: I’m not aware of that, sir.

Q: The fact that there was no pattern to the
placement of the bodies out at the crime scene -- I
mean, is that a factor -- if the bodies were placed
in a pattern would that be a factor you would
consider?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Okay. But the fact that the bodies were not
placed in a pattern then that's a factor you did not
consider?

A: You were looking down when you asked that,
counselor. Are you suggesting that they were not in
a pattern when they were found?

Q: Let me rephrase this.

A: Yes sir.

Q: Did the crime scene indicate to you that the boys
were laid out in a line or in a unique manner?

A: I sus -- By the way they were tied up, I can only
suspect that, okay.

Q: Were you aware that you specifically asked that
question on January 27, 1994 to detective Ridge of
the West Memphis Police Department? And he answered,
"No pattern to the placement of the bodies --

A: Yes sir.

Q: -- "except the placement in the water."

A: Yeah.

Q: Did you also ask detective Ridge "Was there any
natural substance in any way laid out in a pattern?"
I believe that was question number 4.

A: You got that -- could you bring it up so that I
can --

Q: Sure.

A: -- take a look at it, counselor. (Pause) Yes, I
did.

Q: And you also aware that detective Ridge's answer
was that from his examination of the crime scene, "I
could not find any items that were laid out in any
pattern."

A: Yes sir.

Q: Alright, and what was question number 6? That you
asked detective Ridge?

A: "Were there any indicators of a slab or a log or
device present at the scene.”

Q: Okay, and he answered number 6, "No slab or log
was found to be in the area." You’re aware of that?

A: Yes sir.

(Pause)

Q: Just a moment judge.

(Pause)

(?): (Inaudible)

THE WITNESS: Yes sir.

PRICE: Is the fact that there were 3 victims in this
case a factor that you considered in reaching you
conclusion?

Q: There was an initial group of 11 questions, and
starting midway on the bottom part of page 1, "In
looking at some of the scene photos and data from
the coroner, some primary indicators come to focus
on." What was the primary indicator, number five?

A: At the time, counselor, I was working from crime
scene photos and not Medical Examiner photos, and I
placed down that all three boys were traumatized in
the area of the penis.

Q: Okay.

A: That's wrong.

Q: Alright, that's wrong? You were able to correct
that once you had a chance to look at the autopsy
photos?

A: Yes sir.

PRICE: No further questions at this time, your
Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY FORD:
Q: Dr. Griffis, is any of the stuff that you've told
this jury so far been based on things you learned
out at this college?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, did you learn those things in any particular
course or class?

A: For the course in toto I was required to read
several occult books.

Q: So basically what you learned was just someone
else's opinion in a book?

A: No sir.

Q: Now, you said that one of your reasons for your
opinion was because you saw a book and you said the
person who had this book had an interest in the
occult, right?

A: Yes sir.

Q: How many books do you have on the occult?

A: In house right now?

Q: Yeah, how many you have?

A: About 4,800.

Q: You’ve got an awful lot of interest in it, don't
you?

A: Yeah.

Q: Are you a member of the occult?

A: No.

Q: But you've got an interest in it, don't you?

A: That's my job.

Q: You make a living out of having an interest in
the occult, is that right?

A: Not just that in itself.

Q: So having an interest in it doesn't make you a
participant in it, does it?

A: No.

Q: Okay, alright. I notice that you didn't answer
one of Mr. Price’s questions, you just kind of
dodged around it, and I wanna ask you again. Could
this be a serial killer?

A: I'd have to have the answer to several questions
before --

Q: Okay. It could be?

A: No I just said I'd have to know a lot more than
just taking a guesstimate.

Q: Basically everything you have told us here today
is a guesstimate, isn't it?

A: No, it's based on training and work.

Q: If you can't rule out that it's a serial killer,
aren't you just guessing that it's an occult
killing?

A: No, the trappings are there. What I -- in a
serial killer there are things that you look for.
You haven't given me anything that would -- you
know.

Q: So basically you're telling this jury you don't
have enough information to truly form a complete
opinion?

A: On serial killing? No.

Q: Okay. So since you can’t rule it out it's still a
possibility, isn't it?

A: I would have to know a lot more, yes.

Q: Okay. So that means you can't rule it out?

A: No.

Q: Have you ever been to this crime scene? West
Memphis, Arkansas?

A: No sir.

Q: Never even walked out there, have you?

A: I went past it last evening that was --

Q: Never walked out in there, have you?

A: No sir.

Q: Wouldn't that be important if you're gonna give
an opinion about this crime scene being the site of
a ritualistic occult killing that you actually go
and see it?

A: They sent me pictures of all four sides.

Q: They sent you pictures? Okay. Did those pictures
show you every angle?

A: They showed me, I think, three or four angles,
yes sir.

Q: Three or four angles. But there's a lot more than
three or four angles if you're out in a wooded area,
isn't there?

A: I -- in looking at occult cases, counselor, I
look at the points of a compass as an indicator.

Q: Points of a compass, okay. Part of your opinion
-- You ready, Barbara? -- Part of your opinion is
based upon the fact, isn't it, that this happened in
a secluded area? Isn't that right?

A: Yes.

Q: This is a secluded area right near these homes,
near this truck wash and near this truck stop.
That's a secluded area?

A: Counselor, I'm sorry, but I can't see from this
angle.

Q: Get down there and tell me if -- tell this jury
if you even know where the crime scene is on that
photograph. Can you pick it out? You can get down if
you like.

A: Thank you. (Pause) It's my understanding it's
right in this area.

Q: And you're telling this jury that is a secluded
area?

A: Yes sir.

Q: But you've never been there, have you?

A: No sir.

Q: Do you know how far it is from where these bodies
were found to the nearest home? Do you know?

A: I was in Bryn's (?) I can't really remember
exactly.

Q: You don't know, do you?

A: Not right now, but I knew at the time.

Q: Now, if you're trying to make a determination
that it being in a secluded area is important,
doesn't it stand to reason that you wanna know how
close you are to other things? How close you are to
a home, to a business?

A: I was, counselor, in a case in --

Q: That's not --

A: -- Boston which was right beside a church or a
school, but they never saw it either.

Q: That's not my question. My question is, if you're
trying to make -- if you’re basing your opinion on
the fact that it’s a secluded area --

A: Yes.

Q: -- isn't it important to know how close it is to
a residence or a business?

A: I think in Mr. Ridge's report to me it was there.

Q: That's not my question. Is it important -- for
the third time -- is it important in determining
whether you're in a secluded area to know how close
the nearest residence --

A: Yes.

Q: -- or the nearest business, but you don't know
that, do you?

A: I was told by -- I think it was in his report --
of Bryn's -- how close it was.

Q: But you don't know, do you?

A: No sir.

Q: Do you have an opinion about where the blood
went? Or you don't know, do you?

A: No.

Q: Don't know?

A: I do not in this case know where the blood went
because they have not told me.

Q: Now, if there was testimony in this case that
these boys were killed somewhere else --

A: Yes sir.

Q: -- that they were taken, tied up and gagged --

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, that assumes facts that aren't
in evidence for him to say there was testimony that
they were killed somewhere else.

FORD: Let me ask a hypothetical question the way Mr.
Fogleman did.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, that isn't what he said. He
said if there was testimony. My hypothetical
included testimony that there's actually been.

THE COURT: If you're going to form a hypothetical,
it is going to have to be based upon facts that are
in evidence.

FORD: Or may be presented in evidence.

THE COURT: Or may be presented in evidence.

DAVIS: Your Honor, may we approach.

THE COURT: Yeah.

(A BENCH CONFERENCE OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY)

FORD: Peretti gave an opinion on possibilities --

THE COURT: -- But that's not testimony.

FORD: Yes, he did. He gave his opinion, your Honor.
He gave his opinion that in his opinion these
homicides occurred somewhere other than at the
scene.

FOGLEMAN: No, he did not.

FORD: Yes, he did.

THE COURT: No, he didn't.

FORD: Yes, he did.

THE COURT: He just said it was possible.

FORD: Well, that's an opinion. That’s an opinion.

FOGLEMAN: Show me where he said that.

FORD: Will I have a chance to read it?

PRICE: (Inaudible) copy.

THE COURT: You're not going to find it in there.

FORD: I can't read all that hundred and some odd
pages right now and find it, but I know that he gave
that opinion.

(?): Keep your voice down.

FORD: He gave his opinion that it could have
happened in one of three places --

(?): Keep your voice down.

FORD: -- in the water, at the bank or somewhere
else, and of those three the most plausible was
somewhere else.

FOGLEMAN: I think that was your testimony.

FORD: That was his testimony.

THE COURT: No.

(?): Ask another question and we’ll find it
(Inaudible)

FORD: May we look at that so we can read it?

DAVIS: If you wanna find that area for me --

FORD: Yeah that’s what Robin’s gonna look for while
I ask him some other questions, or do you wanna keep
that a secret?

DAVIS: I'm going to keep this. This is my copy.

FORD: What a joke. Can we take a break since he
won't let us look at his copy to get a copy of it?

THE COURT: You can get all the copies you want, but
we're not taking a break now. Let's move along.

FORD: Your Honor, I can't question this witness
until I have the answer to that question.

THE COURT: Until you have what answer?

FORD: I believe Doctor Peretti gave the opinion that
of those three possibilities the most probable was
that it happened somewhere else.

DAVIS: Here's the area where you were questioning
him (inaudible)

(Pause)

THE COURT: What you're trying to --

FORD: There's the question there --

(Multiple voice - unintelligible)

FORD: Let the judge read it.

THE COURT: Okay.

(Pause)

THE COURT: Okay. I've read it.

(RETURN TO OPEN COURT)

Q: If there were testimony in this case that these
homicides could have occurred somewhere else --

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, it's the same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. You wanna come up here and
point it out to me?

FORD: Your Honor, I asked Doctor Peretti the
question --

(A BENCH CONFERENCE OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY)

(Whispering)

FORD: Is this a certified copy of the transcript?
First of all, your Honor. (Pause) "I would question
that about the blood unless it happened in the water
or it happened at some other place." That was his
testimony.

THE COURT: He just said it was possible.

FORD: And I'm asking him. All I wanna know --

THE COURT: Was there any positive, factual testimony
that it happened somewhere else?

FORD: I could -- well, -- do I get to call him back
--

THE COURT: Are these thing on?

FORD: Do I get to call him back at the conclusion of
my case?

THE COURT: I guess so.

FORD: Or do I get to ask him these hypothetical
questions now?

THE COURT: Are you telling me that you have some
physical evidence that these murders occurred
someplace else?

FORD: Your Honor, I'm telling you that I believe
that there is an argument from this witness right
here, Doctor Peretti, that based on his testimony, I
can argue to the jury that it could have happened
somewhere else.

THE COURT: Sure.

FORD: Therefore I'm entitled to --

THE COURT: -- but you don't have any facts --

FORD: I'm entitled to ask him if he were told that
this homicide occurred somewhere else, would that
change his opinion that this was an occult killing.
I think I'm entitled to ask him that because the
jury may very well conclude and agree that yes this
happened somewhere else and if that is true, they
need to know that his opinion would be different.

DAVIS: That is assuming a fact that is not in
evidence.

FORD: I can't ask him, if this homicide occurred
somewhere else, would you have a different opinion?

THE COURT: I'll let you ask that question.

(Multiple voices - unintelligible)

THE COURT: Just like you just asked.

FORD: Okay.

(RETURN TO OPEN COURT)

Q: Doctor --

THE COURT: He said he didn't know whether he was
supposed to listen or not that's why he turned his
back --

Q: If this homicide occurred somewhere else --

A: Yes sir.

Q: -- other than in these woods, would your opinion
that this was an occult killing change?

A: You're asking me to make an opinion, counselor.

Q: Absolutely, I sure am --

A: And to have that, I would also have to know -- do
we know where it happened at?

Q: If the homicides did occur somewhere else, would
your opinion change?

A: I would have to have a different set of facts.

Q. So does that mean, yes your opinion would change
or, no your opinion would not change?

A: No, my comment is the same, counselor, as what
I've just said to you. I would have to know some
more facts.

Q: Would the likelihood go down if the homicides
occurred somewhere else?

A: It could go up. It could go down.

Q: It could go down --

A: It could go down, it could go up.

Q: What evidence do you have to link Jason Baldwin
to the occult? What evidence?

A: Only what I was told last evening.

Q: What evidence do you have that links Jason
Baldwin to the occult?

A: He was the individual who sucked the blood out of
the individual's penis.

Q: Okay. If that evidence is wrong, if that evidence
is a lie, do you have any other evidence to connect
Jason Baldwin to the occult?

A: I have not seen the reports to know if other
people said he was present or not. So the answer
would be no.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY FOGLEMAN:
Q: The serial killers have been mentioned. In your
experience, do serial killers act alone or run in
packs?

A: Of all the cases I have read about, there's only
been, I think, two of them that ran with another
individual. Most generally they act alone.

THE COURT: Alright, is this redirect? That you've
got now? Mr. Price?

PRICE: No sir, it's recross examination of this
witness.

THE COURT: Based upon that one question?

PRICE: Based upon Mr. Ford's questions, judge.

THE COURT: I'm not gonna let you go too far in
recrossing on each other, but go ahead to a limited
degree.

PRICE: Just one brief area, your Honor.

RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY PRICE:
Q: If I can approach the witness.

THE COURT: Alright.

Q: Can you identify that picture?

A: (Laughing) Yeah, back when I had not so much grey
hair.

Q: I believe there was an article in the Capital
Magazine --

A: Yeah. You identified that earlier today as from
some place else. That's out of Columbus, Ohio.

Q: Okay. Excuse me.

A: Yes sir.

Q: Alright, do you recall an article in the Capital
Magazine, Dispatch Magazine, July 15, 1984, and this
was basically an article about you. It was entitled
"Sympathy for the Devil," and it talked about your
activities in this area, in your research, in your
consulting and that type of thing.

A: About -- yes sir.

Q: Alright. And I think actually, I believe you --

A: Not so much consulting --

Q: You were still with the department --

A: -- yeah I was with the department, and I was
being asked questions from other departments.

Q: Alright. I wanna ask you about a quote that is
attributed to you that is contained in this article:
"You have got to remember there's a lot of sheriffs
and a lot of police chiefs under a hell of a lot of
pressure when I get there. He said, I'm there to
help my brother police officers. I report to them,
not the public." Is this quote attributed to you?

A: Yes sir.

PRICE: No further questions.

FOGLEMAN: I don't have any further questions.

THE COURT: Anything else? Can we let him go? You're
gonna have to have state policeman to take your to
that plane I guess.